Rigoberto Martinez-Romero 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 27 2010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
RIGOBERTO MARTINEZ-ROMERO, No. 09-72780
aka Rigoberto Martinez,
Agency No. A029-168-480
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 Rigoberto Martinez-Romero, 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 (IJ) decision denying his application for withholding
*
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).
of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
Petitioner conceded at the hearing before the IJ that he was ineligible for
asylum due to an admitted prior aggravated felony conviction. Because he elected
not to pursue his asylum claim before the IJ, we do not address his asylum claim
on appeal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of withholding of removal
because Martinez-Romero 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). Likewise, perceived wealth is not
a protected ground. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir.
2010); see Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 2005) (observing that
recognizing major segments of population as a social group would be tantamount
to extending refugee status to every alien displaced by general conditions of unrest
or violence in home country); Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir. 2001)
2 09-72780
(“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 Martinez-Romero 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.
3 09-72780