Judee Monsca Cruz v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUDEE MONSCA CRUZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73168
Agency No. A095-724-546
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 26, 2013 **
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Judee Monsca Cruz, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of removal
and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
MAY 24 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history
underlying this appeal, we do not recount them here.
11-73168 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. Zhou v.
Gonzales, 437 F.3d 860, 864 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. 1
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cruz was
ineligible for withholding of removal because she failed to establish either past
persecution or an independent showing of a clear probability of future persecution
in the Philippines. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); Tamang v.
Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Santos–Lemus v. Mukasey,
542 F.3d 738, 742-44 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that safety of similarly situated
family member is substantial evidence that there is not a basis for fearing
persecution).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Cruz failed to show that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of government officials if she is removed to the
Philippines. See Santos–Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747-48.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --