Arevalo-Chanax v. Holder ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL GARCIA-GALVEZ, No. 07-72698
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-112-569
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.
Manuel Garcia-Galvez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his 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).
KN/Research
withholding of removal, and the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 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 dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s claim that the IJ erred by
excluding certain documents from the record. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
We reject petitioner’s claim that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of
removal based on his membership in a particular social group, namely, El
Salvadoreans who refuse to join gangs and are consequently threatened. 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
KN/Research 2 07-72698
omitted). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioner failed
to establish persecution on account of political opinion. See Santos-Lemus, 542
F.3d 738 at 747. Accordingly, because petitioner failed to establish that he was
persecuted and that he fears persecution on account of a protected ground, we deny
the petition as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Barrios, 581
F.3d at 856.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioner failed to establish a likelihood of torture in El Salvador. See Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
KN/Research 3 07-72698