David Canales Sanchez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 29 2012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
DAVID DE JESUS CANALES No. 10-71212
SANCHEZ, aka David De Jesus Sanchez,
Agency No. A094-449-419
Petitioner,
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.
David de Jesus Canales Sanchez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions 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 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 Sanchez 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”); Sangha v. INS,
103 F.3d 1482, 1486-87 (9th Cir. 1997) (requiring causal connection between
alleged persecution and protected ground, and explaining that nexus cannot be
inferred merely by acts of random violence).
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on
the Board’s finding that Sanchez did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the
instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the El Salvadoran
government. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-71212