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NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2011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
ALEYDA YANETH BARRIENTOS- No. 10-70281
SORTO; OSCAR SAMUEL
BARRIENTOS-SORTO, Agency Nos. A094-789-716
A094-789-717
Petitioners,
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.
Aleyda Barrientos-Sorto and Oscar Barrientos-Sorto, natives and citizens of
El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
*
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).
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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.
Petitioners contend they suffered past persecution and have a well-founded
fear of future persecution by gangs in El Salvador. Substantial evidence supports
the agency’s finding that they failed to show past persecution or a well-founded
fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555
F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected
ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”).
Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claims fail.
2 10-70281
Because petitioners failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum,
their claims for withholding of removal necessarily fail. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
petitioners are not entitled to CAT relief because they failed to demonstrate it is
more likely than not that they will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the El
Salvadorean government if they return to El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524
F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-70281