Carl Louise Barrientos Cuenca 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARL LOUISE BARRIENTOS
CUENCA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-76665
Agency No. A079-367-032
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Carl Louise Barrientos Cuenca, a native and citizen of the Philippines,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily
affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
JAN 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

05-76665 2
We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1
(1992), and deny the petition for review.
Cuenca does not raise any challenge to the IJ’s dispositive determination that
his asylum application is time-barred. Accordingly, Cuenca’s asylum claim fails.
Cuenca did not allege he experienced any past persecution or other
mistreatment in the Philippines, but contends he fears future persecution because
he is “Americanized.” Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of withholding
of removal because Cuenca failed to demonstrate a clear probability of persecution
on account of any protected ground. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179,
1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, the record does not compel the conclusion
that Cuenca established a pattern or practice of persecution of Americanized
Filipinos in the Philippines. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060-62 (9th
Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Cuenca’s withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --