Marcelino Sanchez-Cruz v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 591 F. App'x 548 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCELINO SANCHEZ-CRUZ, No. 10-71907
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-017-607
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Marcelino Sanchez-Cruz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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 review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056
(9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
We reject Sanchez-Cruz’s contention that the IJ failed to consider properly
his fear of persecution by gangs on account of his political opinion and/or
membership in a particular social group. Sanchez-Cruz does not challenge the
BIA’s finding that he failed to show gang members targeted him due to his
perceived ability to pay rather than his proposed social group. Further, substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Sanchez-Cruz failed to establish his
actual or imputed political opinion was a central reason for the harm he suffered or
fears. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“a
protected ground [must] represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s
persecution”). Because the BIA’s nexus finding is dispositive, we need not reach
Sanchez-Cruz’s other contentions. Thus, Sanchez-Cruz’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Sanchez-Cruz failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by the government of El Salvador, or with its consent or acquiescence.
2 10-71907
See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, Sanchez-
Cruz’s CAT claim also fails.
This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial
discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471,
483-85 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at
any stage, including after the conclusion of judicial review).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-71907