VASILE BUDURE V. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., No. 08-72477 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 06 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VASILE BUDURE; DANIEL BUDURE, Petitioners, No. 08-72477 Agency Nos. A099-524-147 A099-524-145 v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 3, 2012 ** San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Brothers Daniel and Vasile Budure ( Petitioners ), citizens of Romania, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) affirmance of an Immigration * 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). Judge s ( IJ ) denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition. Because the BIA adopted the IJ s conclusions as to whether Petitioners demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, we review that portion of the IJ s decision as if it were the BIA s own. Hoque v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Wang v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2003)). After a careful review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ s determination. Even if reasonable minds could differ over whether the discrimination and harassment Petitioners endured in Romania amount to past persecution, the facts do not compel such a finding. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011) (to reverse factual findings, the evidence must compel a different conclusion from the one reached by the [IJ] (citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1 (1992))). Additionally, Petitioners fail to demonstrate a subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007) ( To be well-founded, an asylum applicant s fear of persecution must be both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because they do not meet the eligibility requirements for asylum, Petitioners claim[s] for withholding of removal, governed by a more stringent standard, [are] 2 also foreclosed. Castro-Martinez v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 2005)). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
