Joselito Menguito, A.k.a. Joselito Borja Menguito; Richellamenguito; Jessriel Menguito; Nerissa Salazar Menguito,a.k.a. Nerissa Salazar; Janis-bob Menguito, A.k.a.janie-bob Menguito, Petitioners, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent, 122 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1997)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 122 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1997) Submitted Aug. 25, 1997. **Filed Aug. 28, 1997

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Before SCHROEDER, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM* 

Joselito Menguito, his wife, and three of their children, all natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") order denying their applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. We dismiss in part and deny in part.

The Menguitos contend that IJs routinely discriminate against Filipinos seeking asylum. We dismiss this contention for lack of jurisdiction.

We conclude that the evidence presented by the Menguitos would not compel a reasonable factfinder to find a well-founded fear of persecution based upon one of the five requisite grounds. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). Because the Menguitos failed to meet the lower standard required to obtain asylum, they also failed to satisfy the higher standard of "clear probability of persecution" required for withholding of deportation. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

 **

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

 *

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3

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.