Cesar Monterroso-Pacheco v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR OBDULIO MONTERROSO- No. 09-73325
PACHECO,
Agency No. A098-795-030
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Cesar Obdulio Monterroso-Pacheco, a native and citizen of
Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding
of removal because petitioner failed to show his alleged persecutors threatened him
on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83
(1992) (holding that forced recruitment alone is not enough to show persecution on
account of political opinion). His fear of future persecution based on an actual or
imputed anti-gang or anti-crime opinion is not on account of the protected ground
of either membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Ramos
Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009); Santos-Lemus v.
Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008); see Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859,
865 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Asylum generally is not available to victims of civil strife,
unless they are singled out on account of a protected ground.”)
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on
the Board’s finding that petitioner did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the
instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government.
See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-73325