Vicenta Cordova v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 381 F. App'x 718 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICENTA CORDOVA; et al., No. 08-73583
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A200-057-571
A200-057-570
v. A200-057-560
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Vicenta Cordova and her two children, German Cordova-Cordova and Jose
Antonio Cordova-Cordova, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review
of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an
*
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).
immigration judge's decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial
evidence, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the Board's denial of asylum and withholding
of removal because petitioners failed to show their alleged persecutors threatened
them on account of a protected ground. Their 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. See Ramos Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009);
Santos-Lemus at 745-46; 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.”).
Substantial evidence also supports the Board's denial of CAT relief based on
the Board's finding that petitioners 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.