Gilberto Flores-Henriquez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 400 F. App'x 288 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GILBERTO ANTONIO FLORES- No. 09-71106
HENRIQUEZ,
Agency No. A029-280-011
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Gilberto Antonio Flores-Henriquez, 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 decision denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Santos-Lemus v.
Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and de novo claims of due process
violations in immigration proceedings, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243,
1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Flores-Henriquez contends he suffered harm from alleged gang members
during several robberies on account of his political opinion and/or his membership
in a particular social group.1 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that
the robberies were criminal in nature and thus that Flores-Henriquez failed to
establish the required nexus to a protected ground. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364
F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004) (random criminal acts bore no nexus to a protected
ground); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009)
(“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’
for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, Flores-Henriquez’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166,
1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
1
To the extent Flores-Henriquez contends he is a member of a social
group distinct from the one the BIA considered and rejected, we lack jurisdiction to
consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
2 09-71106
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Flores-Henriquez
did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent
or acquiescence of the El Salvadoran government. See Villegas v. Mukasey, 523
F.3d 984, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, his CAT claim fails.
Finally, Flores-Henriquez’s due process contention that the BIA’s
streamlined order did not provide a reasoned decision fails because it is belied by
the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error
for petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-71106