Case Name: Victor Vicente CHAMALE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-04
Citations: 127 F. App'x 317
Docket Number: No. 04-72090
Parties: Victor Vicente CHAMALE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 127
Pages: 317–318

Head Matter:
Victor Vicente CHAMALE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-72090.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 28, 2005.
Decided April 4, 2005.
Daniel E. Chavez, Esq., Law Offices of Daniel E. Chavez, Petaluma, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Susan Houser, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Victor Vicente Chámale, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") affirmance of an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction pursu ant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Assuming, as the BIA did, that Chamale testified credibly, substantial evidence nonetheless supports the BIA's determination that Chamale failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his membership and involvement with the Democratic Party and the Civil Defense Patrol. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that while the petitioner's fear was subjectively genuine, it was not objectively reasonable under the circumstances).
Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), Chamale's motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the stay of removal was continued based on the government's filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, to the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate.
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 Circuit Rule 36-3.