Case Name: Eric Gepiga GUERRA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-29
Citations: 604 F. App'x 634
Docket Number: No. 13-72619
Parties: Eric Gepiga GUERRA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 604
Pages: 634–634

Head Matter:
Eric Gepiga GUERRA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-72619.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2015.
Filed May 29, 2015.
Ted Laguatan, Esquire, Law Offices of Ted Laguatan & Associates, Daly City, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Matthew Allan Spurlock, Ada Elsie Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eric Gepiga Guerra, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
We reject Guerra's request that the court take judicial notice of country conditions in the Philippines. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).
The record does not compel the finding that Guerra established the government of the Philippines is unwilling or unable to control the individuals he fears. See Nahrvani, 399 F.3d at 1154. Thus, Guerra's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.