United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Reports


VELARDE v. GONZALES, 04-71974 (9th Cir. 1-8-2007) GIL
DELATORRE VELARDE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ALBERTO R.
GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondant-Appellee. No.
04-71974, Agency No. A70-957-605. United States Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted November 13,
2006. San Francisco, California. January 8, 2007.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the
issuing court.] MEMORANDUM[fn*]

[fn*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication
and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R.

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

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Circuit Judge, FARRIS and
RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner submits various claims seeking relief from
removal on account of his status as a homosexual and,
alternatively, on account of political opinion.

Petitioner alleges three incidents where he was ridiculed
or harassed as a result of his homosexuality. However, the
statute under which Petitioner seeks relief requires
persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1); 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.13(b). Persecution is “the infliction of
suffering or harm upon those who differ in a way regarded
as offensive.” Desir v. Ilchert, 840 F.2d 723, 727 (9th
Cir. 1988). It is an “extreme concept.” Fisher v. INS, 79
F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir. 1996). None of the three incidents
of ridicule or harassment is sufficient to constitute past
persecution. There also is no basis in the record for a
claim of fear of future persecution based on Petitioner’s

Although a failure to show persecution does not necessarily
preclude CAT relief, Petitioner does not point to any
additional evidence that the Immigration Judge should have
considered in evaluating his CAT claim. Therefore, we must
affirm the Immigration Judge’s denial of relief on this
claim as well. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57
(9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, the record fails to show a well-founded fear of
persecution or a likelihood of torture based on
Petitioner’s alleged spying against the New Peoples’ Army.
He received word in 1979 that the New Peoples’ Army
suspected him of spying, but he continued to visit New
Peoples’ Army camps for five years without incident.
Moreover, the record shows that the New Peoples’ Army’s
strength has substantially diminished since Petitioner left
the Philippines. His alleged fear of persecution or torture
by the New Peoples’ Army is not well-founded.