Case Name: Jimmy Yabes IBEA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-20
Citations: 98 F. App'x 672
Docket Number: No. 03-70039, A72-133-324
Parties: Jimmy Yabes IBEA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 98
Pages: 672–673

Head Matter:
Jimmy Yabes IBEA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-70039, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 10, 2004.
Decided May 20, 2004.
Amos Lawrence, Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lisa M. Arnold, Attorney, Richard Hatch, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jimmy Yabes Ibea, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 338-38 (9th Cir.1995), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's determination that Ibea did not meet his burden of proof because he did not submit direct or specific evidence that he was persecuted in the Philippines on account of a protected ground. See id. at 339-40.
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.