Amaya-Flores v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS FILADELFO ALVARADO, No. 08-70797
a.k.a. Carlos Alvarado Anaya,
Agency No. A095-022-857
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Filadelfo Alvarado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection
*
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 is case suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NED/Research
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512
F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the
BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review factual findings for
substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
We reject Alvarado’s claim that he is eligible for withholding of removal
based on his membership in a particular social group, namely, small business
owners in El Salvador who fear being harmed by gangs if they report them to
police. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 2005) (rejecting as a
particular social group “business owners in Colombia who rejected demands by
narco-traffickers to participate in illegal activity”); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542
F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting as a particular social group “young men
in El Salvador resisting gang violence”) (internal quotation omitted).
Accordingly, because Alvarado failed to demonstrate that he was persecuted
on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to his withholding of
removal claim. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009).
NED/Research 2 08-70797
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Alvarado did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with
the consent or acquiescence of the El Salvadoran government. See Zheng v.
Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
NED/Research 3 08-70797