FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAURICIO ANTONIO GARCIA- No. 08-75144
ORTIZ,
Agency No. A098-284-381
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010 **
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Mauricio Antonio Garcia-Ortiz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
for substantial evidence factual findings, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177
(9th Cir. 2008), and de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS,
210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
We reject Garcia-Ortiz’ contention that the denial of his asylum application
as untimely violated his due process rights, because the applicable statutes and
regulations provide aliens “adequate notice of procedures and standards that will
be applied to their claims for relief.” Husyev, 528 F.3d at 1182. Accordingly,
Garcia-Ortiz’ asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Garcia-Ortiz
failed to establish that gang members harmed him on account of his membership in
the particular social group of his family. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d
1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2002) (no compelling evidence the applicant was persecuted
on account of his family membership); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d
734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground
represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Because
Garcia-Ortiz failed to demonstrate he was persecuted, or fears persecution, on
account of a protected ground, we deny the petition for review as to his
withholding of removal claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-75144