Santos Vega-Aredo v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTOS ARTEMIO VEGA-AREDO, No. 10-70814
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-569-069
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
**
Submitted February 21, 2012
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Santos Artemio Vega-Aredo, a native and citizen of Peru,
petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(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 Vega-Aredo failed to show his alleged persecutors threatened
him on account of a protected ground. 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.”) Contrary to Vega-
Aredo’s assertions, the Board upheld the IJ’s factual findings, and the record does
not compel the conclusion that Vega-Aredo established he was persecuted on
account of an anti-gang political opinion when he resisted the gang’s third
recruitment attempt.
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on
the Board’s finding that Vega-Arego did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at
the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Peruvian government.
See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).
2 10-70814
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-70814