FLOROELIZA GERVACIO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 13-74378 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 18 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FLOROELIZA JUBANE DE GERVACIO, AKA Flordeliza Jubane Gervacio and ERNESTO GERVACIO, AKA Ernesto Ibarreto Gervacio, Petitioners, No. 13-74378 Agency Nos. A075-592-301 A016-076-615 MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. 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). 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 13-74378
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.
