Case Name: Angelo Paguio PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-22
Citations: 225 F. App'x 683
Docket Number: No. 05-70778
Parties: Angelo Paguio PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 683–684

Head Matter:
Angelo Paguio PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70778.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007 .
Filed March 22, 2007.
Angelo Paguio Pineda, North Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
NVL-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Janice K Redfern, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Angelo Paguio Pineda, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's order denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of withholding of removal where Pineda's claim is based on his father's political activity and yet his father continues to reside in the Philippines unharmed. See id. ("claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident"). Likewise, substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.