FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HENRY JAVIER MIRANDA-FLORIAN, No. 09-71241
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-355-221
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.
Henry Javier Miranda-Florian, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, see, e.g., Cerezo v.
Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference
is owed to the Board’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review factual
findings for substantial evidence. See, e.g., Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
We reject Miranda’s claim that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of
removal based on his membership in a particular social group, namely, young
Honduran males who live without a parent and refuse to join gangs. See Barrios v.
Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 855–56 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting, as a particular social
group, “young males in Guatemala who are targeted for gang recruitment but
refuse because they disagree with the gang’s criminal activities”); Ramos-Lopez v.
Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 860–62 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting, as a particular social
group, “young Honduran men who have been recruited by [a gang], but who refuse
to join”). As the Board determined, Miranda’s attempt to distinguish Barrios and
Ramos-Lopez still yields “a potentially large and diffuse segment of society” that
lacks particularity and social visibility. Ramos-Lopez, 563 F.3d at 861.
We also reject Miranda’s contention that he is eligible for relief based upon
a political opinion, actual or imputed. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d
-2-
738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[G]eneral aversion to gangs does not constitute a
political opinion for asylum purposes.”).
Accordingly, because Miranda failed to demonstrate that he was persecuted
or fears persecution on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to
his asylum and withholding-of-removal claims. See Barrios, 581 F.3d at 855–56;
see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The Real ID
Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum
applicant’s persecution.”).
Finally, we reject Miranda’s due-process claim because he suffered no
prejudice from the incomplete transcript of his hearing. See, e.g., Ibarra-Flores v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-3-