FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EMMA ELIZABETH CASTRO- No. 08-71662
SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Emma Elizabeth
Campos Mejia; MANUEL DE JESUS Agency Nos. A099-532-533
CASTRO-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Jose Rafael A099-532-534
Campos Mejia; WENDY CLARIBEL A099-532-537
CACERES-SALINAS, a.k.a. Wendy
Claribel Campos Mejia,
MEMORANDUM *
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr.,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Emma Elizabeth Castro-Sanchez, Manuel de Jesus Castro-Sanchez, and
Wendy Claribel Caceres-Salinas, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro
se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming their
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for
asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for substantial evidence factual findings. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that petitioners failed to
demonstrate the harm they suffered from gang members or from their uncle was on
account of a protected ground. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th
Cir. 2004). We do not reach petitioners’ contentions that they were harmed on
account of an imputed political opinion or that they are members of a particular
social group based on their family ties because these distinct claims were not
presented to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004). Substantial evidence also supports the finding that petitioners do not have a
well-founded fear of future persecution because they can reasonably relocate
within El Salvador. See Kaiser v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 653, 659 (9th Cir. 2004)
(when there is no past persecution, petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating
2 08-71662
that relocation is unreasonable); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i). Accordingly,
petitioners’ asylum claims fail.
Because petitioners failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it
follows that they have not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly,
petitioners’ withholding of removal claims also fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-71662