Soliven Cruz Bautista v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SOLIVEN CRUZ BAUTISTA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72491
Agency No. A077-311-993
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Soliven Cruz Bautista, a native and citizen of the Phillippines, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

factual findings for substantial evidence and review de novo legal questions. Lim
v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Bautista failed to
establish that his political opinion or his alleged membership in a particular social
group were one central reason for his NPA-related experiences, which substantial
evidence indicates were motivated primarily by the NPA’s desire to obtain money
through extortion. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 742 (9th Cir.
2009). Accordingly, Bautista’s asylum claim fails.
Because Bautista has not established eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Bautista failed to set forth any substantive argument regarding the agency’s
denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60
(9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
10-72491 2

-- 2 of 2 --