Santos Vega-Aredo v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Santos Vega-Aredo v. Eric Holder, Jr.

470 F. App'x 553

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 29, 2012

Docket10-70814

StatusUnpublished

This text of 470 F. App'x 553 (Santos Vega-Aredo v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Santos Vega-Aredo v. Eric Holder, Jr., 470 F. App'x 553 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Francisco Zavala and Josefina Rivas, husband and wife and natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing them appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

*555 We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s timeliness determination as to petitioners’ asylum application, filed 19 months late. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2007). We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ unexhausted contention that their untimely asylum application is excused by extraordinary or changed circumstances. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of withholding of removal because petitioners failed to show their alleged persecutors threatened them on account of a protected ground. Petitioners’ 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. Ramos Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir.2009); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.2008); 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 DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Francisco Zavala and Josefina Rivas, husband and wife and natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing them appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

*555 We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s timeliness determination as to petitioners’ asylum application, filed 19 months late. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2007). We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ unexhausted contention that their untimely asylum application is excused by extraordinary or changed circumstances. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of withholding of removal because petitioners failed to show their alleged persecutors threatened them on account of a protected ground. Petitioners’ 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. Ramos Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir.2009); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.2008); 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 DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

470 F. App'x 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santos-vega-aredo-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack