FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE ALBERTO BENITEZ-GARCIA, No. 08-73678
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-596-093
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Alberto Benitez-Garcia, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
*
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).
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 for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for
review.
We reject Benitez-Garcia’s contention that he was or will be persecuted by
gangs based on his membership in a particular social group. See Barrios v. Holder,
581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting argument that “young men who
resist gang recruitment” constitutes a social group establishing nexus to a protected
ground); 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, his asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Barrios, 581 F.3d at 856.
Benitez-Garcia failed to set forth any substantive argument regarding the
BIA’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-
60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
2 08-73678
Finally, Benitez-Garcia’s contention that both the IJ and BIA failed to
consider evidence in the record fails, because he has not overcome the presumption
that the agency reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592,
603 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, his due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-73678