Rosario Romero-Menjivar v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 381 F. App'x 746 ( 2010 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
ROSARIO FRANKLIN ROMERO- No. 09-71341
MENJIVAR,
Agency No. A099-534-392
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Rosario Franklin Romero-Menjivar, 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 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 Romero-Menjivar failed to show his alleged persecutors
threatened him on account of a protected ground, because being a witness to a
crime is not a protected ground. See Ramos Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 860-
61 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that members of a social group share common,
immutable characteristics that are sufficiently distinct that members would be
recognized by others as a discrete, socially visible class of persons); Santos-Lemus
v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that social group has
particular and well-defined boundaries); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048,
1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that personal retribution is not persecution on
account of political opinion).
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on
the Board’s finding that Romero-Menjivar 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