Case ID: f-appx_204/html/0699-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jerry MONTERO ORDANZA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74741.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.
    
    Filed Dec. 8, 2006.
    J. Antonio Nierras, Tancinco Law Offices, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Laurel A. Bedig, U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental & Natural Resources Div., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jerry Montero Ordanza (“Ordanza”), a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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 and review the IJ’s determinations for substantial evidence. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 338 (9th Cir.1995). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that the New People’s Army’s extortion and harassment of Ordanza while he supervised a public works project in the Philippines was not based on his actual or imputed political opinion. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1491 (9th Cir.1997) (concluding that petitioner failed to show that he faced problems on account of his political opinion); see also Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1280-81 (9th Cir.1998) (denying petition for review because petitioners failed to establish that extortion was on account of an enumerated ground). We therefore uphold the IJ’s determination that Ordanza is not eligible for asylum.

Because Ordanza did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard of proof for withholding of removal. See Ze hatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.