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NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2011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
MARIA ESTELLA LOPEZ, a.k.a. Elda No. 09-73119
Hernandez, a.k.a. Maria Lopez,
Agency No. A072-724-638
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
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.
Maria Estella Lopez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
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.
In her opening brief, Lopez concedes the agency’s dispositive determination
that her asylum claim was untimely and fails to challenge the agency’s denial of
her CAT claim. See Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997-8 (9th Cir. 2007)
(issues not raised and argued in the opening brief are deemed waived).
We reject Lopez’s claim that she is eligible for withholding of removal
based on her fear of gang violence or based on general conditions of crime in
Honduras. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008)
(rejecting as a particular social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang
violence”); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (a
general fear of gang violence does not establish membership in a protected social
group).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez’s claim that she faces persecution
based on membership in a social group of “family members of persons killed by
2 09-73119
Honduran gangs,” because she did not argue this as a distinct social group to the IJ
or the BIA. See Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 412 (9th Cir. 2009) (the court
lacks jurisdiction to consider claims not exhausted administratively).
Accordingly, because Lopez failed to demonstrate that she was persecuted or
fears persecution on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to her
withholding of removal claim. See Barrios, 581 F.3d 849, 856.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-73119