Case Name: Evelyn Munio LUCINA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General,* Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-24
Citations: 103 F. App'x 134
Docket Number: No. 02-71914
Parties: Evelyn Munio LUCINA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 134–136

Head Matter:
Evelyn Munio LUCINA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-71914.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2004.
Decided June 24, 2004.
Norma M. Molinar, Esq., Law Offices of Norma M. Molinar, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Marion E. Guyton, Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HALL, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
We sua sponte amend the caption to reflect that Attorney General John Ashcroft is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Evelyn Munio Lucina, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), and we deny the petition for review.
Lucina's challenge to the BIA's summary affirmance procedure is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849-50 (9th Cir.2003).
Lucina's challenge to the decision on the merits fails because, even assuming she was a credible witness, the IJ's determination that she failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution was supported by substantial evidence. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that petitioner must show more than the existence of a generalized or random possibility of persecution in his native country and that claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situ ated family members continue to live in the country without incident); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that record did not compel the conclusion that threats constituted past persecution where the petitioner, a former intelligence officer, received death threats after testifying in court against subversives).
By fading to qualify for asylum, Lucina necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245,1255 (9th Cir.2003).
Pursuant to Elian v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 897 (9th Cir.2004) (order), petitioner's voluntary departure period will being to run upon issuance of this court's mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
xhis 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.