SAMMY TAN TANG; CHRISSIE CORRO TANG, a.k.a. Chrissie Enriquez Corro v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMMY TAN TANG; CHRISSIE
CORRO TANG, a.k.a. Chrissie Enriquez
Corro,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71339
Agency Nos. A096-071-801
A096-071-802
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Sammy Tan Tang and Chrissie Corro Tang, natives and citizens of the
Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
FILED
JAN 23 2014
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).
12-71339

-- 1 of 3 --

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Tang claims he fears persecution if he returns to the Philippines. Even
assuming Tang’s asylum application was timely-filed, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s finding that he failed to establish a well-founded fear of
future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)
(petitioner’s claim of future fear was based on speculation). Even if Chinese
Filipinos are a disfavored group, Tang has not demonstrated sufficient
individualized risk of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th
Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Tang’s asylum claim fails.
Because Tang failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows
that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Tang failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by
12-71339 2

-- 2 of 3 --

or with the acquiescence of the government of the Philippines. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-71339 3

-- 3 of 3 --