Garcia

Garcia v. Ashcroft

Good Law
90 F. App'x 269
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 18, 2004Nos. 02-71630, 02-71631; Agency Nos. A76-842-239, A76-842-238California360 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Felipe Cortegana and Violeta Garcia petition for review from the denial of their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition for review. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case we need not recount it here.

The immigration judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. The harm suffered by Cortegana was not sufficient to constitute persecution within the meaning of immigration law. The threats were unspecific, and there was no further action indicating that whatever harm was threatened would occur. Because Corte-gana did not suffer past persecution, he is not entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution under 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 (b)(1). Cortegana did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. The-threats to him and his family stopped completely once he quit his job as an ambulance driver. See Castillo v. INS, 951 F.2d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir.1991).

Petitioners’ due process challenge to the summary affirmance by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (a)(7) is foreclosed by Falcon Car-riche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 852 (9th…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.