FLOROELIZA JUBANE DE GERVACIO, AKA Flordeliza Jubane Gervacio v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FLOROELIZA JUBANE DE GERVACIO,
AKA Flordeliza Jubane Gervacio and
ERNESTO GERVACIO, AKA Ernesto
Ibarreto Gervacio,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74378
Agency Nos. A075-592-301
A016-076-615
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Floroeliza Jubane De Gervacio and Ernesto Gervacio, natives and citizens of
the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-74378
applications 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.
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for
review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners established
changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse their untimely asylum
applications. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d
1088, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010). We reject as unsupported by the record the
petitioners’ contention that the agency failed to conduct the correct analysis. Thus,
petitioners’ asylum claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish past persecution or that it is more likely than not they will be
persecuted in the Philippines on account of a protected ground. See Mansour v.
Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2004) (record did not demonstrate that
petitioner had an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution); see also
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution too speculative). Thus, petitioners’ withholding of removal claims fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --