
    Pedro Ricardo MENDIOLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72454.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Jan. 10, 2014.
    Filed Feb. 4, 2014.
    Alan Michael Anzarouth, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Kerry Ann Monaco, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, CLIFTON, Circuit Judge, and RAKOFF, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that Petitioner Pedro Ricardo Mendiola failed to establish eligibility for deferral under CAT. Although Mendiola was attacked in the Philippines in 1995 in connection with a land title dispute, he has not been threatened since that time, and neither the 1995 nor the 2005 Philippine Country Report states that individuals in his position (i.e., Marcos supporters or individuals involved in land disputes) are currently being tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, the government. Moreover, Mendiola’s parents very recently traveled to the Philippines without incident. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1022 (9th Cir.2009), citing Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001) (“[A] petitioner’s fear of future persecution is ‘weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members’ living in the petitioner’s home country are not harmed.”) (emphasis omitted).

Thus, Mendiola has failed to provide material evidence that he, or persons of his profile, are being sought out or individually targeted for torture upon return to the Philippines. In the absence of such evidence, the Board’s finding that Mendiola failed to establish eligibility for deferral under CAT was amply supported by the evidence before it.

DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     