Alex Abesamis Dometita; Maria Margarita Dometita v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
PR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEX ABESAMIS DOMETITA; MARIA
MARGARITA DOMETITA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72278
Agency Nos. A099-035-822
A099-035-823
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Alex Abesamis Dometita, and his wife, Maria Margarita Dometita, natives
and citizens of the Philippines, petition pro se for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration
FILED
JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

PR/Research 07-72278 2
judge’s decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992), and we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that petitioners failed to
establish the threats Dometita received from the Abusayaff group were on account
of a protected ground. See Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1280-81 (9th Cir.
1998) (denying petition for review because petitioners did not establish that
extortion was on account of an enumerated ground); see also Parussimova v.
Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (a protected ground has to be “one
central reason” for persecution). Accordingly, because petitioners failed to
demonstrate that they were persecuted or fear future persecution on account of a
protected ground, their asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --