FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 08 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE EZEQUIEL VALDEZ- No. 09-72240
BONILLA,
Agency No. A099-469-546
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Ezequiel Valdez-Bonilla, 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 decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
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 Valdez-Bonilla’s claim that he is eligible for asylum and
withholding of removal based on his membership in a particular social group,
namely, victims of gang recruitment. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738,
744-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting as a particular social group “young men in El
Salvador resisting gang violence”); 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”). Valdez-Bonilla’s social
visibility argument is foreclosed by our decision in Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 744-
46.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Valdez-Bonilla’s CAT
claim because he failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if
he returns to El Salvador. See id. at 747-48.
2
Finally, we reject Valdez-Bonilla’s claim under the William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (“TVPRA”), Pub. L.
110-457, because he is not eligible for relief. See 6 U.S.C. § 279(g)(2)(C)(i).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3