Jose Barillas v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUCIO BARILLAS, aka Jose Lucio No. 09-72528
Barillas Portillo,
Agency No. A072-438-417
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 **
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Lucio Barillas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals which dismissed his
appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum,
*
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).
withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture, and
cancellation of removal.
We reject Lucio Barillas’ claim that he is eligible for asylum based on his
membership in a particular social group, namely persons who suffer persecution
due to the El Salvador government’s inability to control gangs. See Santos-Lemus
v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting as a social group
“young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence”). We also reject Lucio
Barillas’ asylum political opinion claim based on his resistance to the gangs. See
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84 (1992); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d
849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009). Because Lucio Barillas failed to demonstrate that he
was persecuted on account of a protected ground, we uphold the agency’s denial of
his asylum and withholding of removal claims. Id. at 856.
Lucio Barillas also claims that the IJ failed to provide him with a full and
fair hearing of his claims by denying him the right to continue his testimony and
present his case. The record, however, does not support petitioner’s claim. See
Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-72528