Case Name: Gilmar Lorenzo MANSUJETO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-06
Citations: 361 F. App'x 798
Docket Number: No. 07-71831
Parties: Gilmar Lorenzo MANSUJETO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 798–799

Head Matter:
Gilmar Lorenzo MANSUJETO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71831.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 6, 2010.
Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esquire, Tan-cinco Law Offices, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, Sunah Lee, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Gilmar Lorenzo Mansujeto, 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 or substantial evidence, Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 n. 4 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Mansujeto has established extraordinary circumstances excusing the untimely filing of his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of withholding of removal because Mansujeto did not establish the threats made by rebel groups amounted to past persecution, or that he faces a clear probability of future persecution based on these threats. See Hoxha, 319 F.3d at 1182, 1185.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.