Case ID: f-appx_308/html/0242-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Danut Alin STANCA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-72549.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
    
    Filed Jan. 15, 2009.
    Jagdip Singh Sekhon, Counsel, Sekhon & Sekhon, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew C. Maela-chlan, OIL, Barry J. Pettinato, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: WALLACE, TROTT and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Danut Alin Stanca, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, but we review purely legal questions de novo. Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition.

The facts of this case do not compel a conclusion that Stanca was persecuted. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003). Nor did Stanca establish an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of persecution. See id.

As to Stanca’s claim for CAT relief, Stanca has not offered any argument regarding grounds for reversal. Thus, Stan-ca has waived his challenge to the denial of his application for relief under CAT. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.