FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 30 2010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 MIRANDA ARTIAGA, No. 08-72201
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-025-482
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Jose Miranda Artiaga, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
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), and we deny the
petition for review.
Artiaga did not allege he experienced past persecution or any harm in El
Salvador. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Artiaga
failed to establish a nexus between the persecution he fears from gang members in
El Salvador and a statutorily protected ground. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d
849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148,
1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that “returning Mexicans from the United
States,” is too broad to qualify as a cognizable social group). Accordingly,
Artiaga’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Artiaga does not challenge the agency’s denial of his asylum application as
time-barred or the denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument in a party’s
opening brief are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-72201