FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ANTONIO GUARDADO- No. 06-70790
CARDOZA and GUADALUPE
GUERRA-ALVARADO, Agency Nos. A078-962-277
A078-962-278
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Guardado-Cardoza and Guadalupe Guerra-Alvarado (wife and
derivative applicant), natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a
decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the oral decision of
*
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).
an immigration judge (IJ) denying Guardado-Cardoza’s application for asylum and
withholding of removal.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Guardado-
Cardoza failed to establish that he suffered persecution on account of a protected
ground, specifically membership in a particular social group or political opinion.
Guardado-Cardoza’s purported social group—persons with perceived economic
wealth or individuals opposed to gangs—does not qualify as a “particular social
group” for purposes of asylum, because it lacks both particularity and social
visibility. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-47 (9th Cir. 2008).
Similarly, Guardado-Cardoza’s anti-gang sentiment also fails to qualify, because it
is not a political opinion for asylum purposes. See id. at 747 (holding that an
alien’s general aversion to gangs did not constitute a political opinion).
Accordingly, his asylum claims fails. See id. at 748.
Because Guardado-Cardoza did not satisfy the lower standard of proof for
asylum, he necessarily did not satisfy the more stringent standard of proof for
withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
PETITION DENIED.