Herrera-Escobar v. Holder , 360 F. App'x 810 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 06 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    FLOR MARIA HERRERA-ESCOBAR,                      No. 08-70321
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A200-101-140
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted December 15, 2009 **
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    Flor Maria Herrera-Escobar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
    from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum,
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    PR/Research
    withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
    We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
    Cerezo v. Mukasey, 
    512 F.3d 1163
    , 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that
    deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and
    regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 
    371 F.3d 532
    , 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review
    factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 
    453 F.3d 1182
    ,
    1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
    We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that, even assuming Herrera-Escobar
    testified credibly, she is not eligible for asylum based on her membership in a
    particular social group, namely, bus employee cashiers who resist criminal gang
    extortion. See Barrios v. Holder, 
    581 F.3d 849
    , 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting
    as a particular social group “young males in Guatemala who are targeted for gang
    recruitment but refuse because they disagree with the gang’s criminal activities”);
    Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 
    542 F.3d 738
    , 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting as a
    particular social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence”)
    (internal quotation omitted). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
    finding that Herrera-Escobar did not demonstrate the threats she experienced from
    gang members demanding money established past persecution or a well-founded
    fear of future persecution on account of her political opinion. See Santos-Lemus,
    PR/Research                               2                                   
    08-70321 542 F.3d at 746-47
    ; see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 
    555 F.3d 734
    , 740-41 (9th
    Cir. 2009) (a protected ground has to be “one central reason” for persecution).
    Accordingly, because Herrera-Escobar failed to demonstrate that she was
    persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to her asylum
    and withholding of removal claims. See 
    Barrios, 581 F.3d at 856
    .
    Herrera-Escobar does not raise any arguments in her opening brief regarding
    the agency’s denial of her CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 
    94 F.3d 1256
    ,
    1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    PR/Research                               3                                   08-70321