FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM EDGARDO LEMUS-LEMUS, No. 09-71412
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-535-220
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
William Edgardo Lemus-Lemus, 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,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo legal
conclusions and for substantial evidence factual findings. Santos-Lemus v.
Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA found that Lemus-Lemus failed to establish past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution because his refusal to be recruited by the
gangs did not constitute an expression of political opinion. Substantial evidence
supports this conclusion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83 (1992);
Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (resistance to gang
membership did not establish political opinion) (internal quotation and citation
omitted). We reject Lemus-Lemus’s contention that the BIA’s analysis was
incomplete.
We do not consider Lemus-Lemus’s other arguments regarding past
persecution because the BIA only addressed his resistance to gang recruitment.
See Ramirez-Altamirano v. Holder, 563 F.3d 800, 804 (9th Cir. 2009) (this court’s
review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA); Navas v. INS, 217
F.3d 646, 658 n.16 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]his court cannot affirm the BIA on a
ground upon which it did not rely.”) (citation omitted). Lemus-Lemus does not
contend that the BIA erred by failing to consider other grounds for past
2 09-71412
persecution. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Lemus-Lemus’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims.
Lemus-Lemus does not raise any challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT
relief. See id. Thus, we deny the petition as to his CAT claim as well.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-71412