FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 31 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GANESH BAHADUR GURUNG, No. 07-72323
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-158-887
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted March 18, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and REAVLEY, Senior
Circuit Judge.**
Ganesh Gurung, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying his asylum application. We deny
the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, Senior United States Circuit
Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Gurung failed to establish that he was persecuted on account of imputed
political opinion. He testified that he refused to cooperate with Maoist guerrillas
who demanded money from him, but he provided no evidence that he expressed
opposition to the Maoists’ cause or that they considered him a political opponent.
Under I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84 (1992), a bare refusal to
cooperate with a guerrilla group is not sufficient to establish persecution on the
basis of political opinion.
Gurung has also failed to show that he was persecuted on the basis of his
membership in the particular social group of successful businessmen in Nepal. For
purposes of the asylum statute, a social group must be defined with particularity
and be “generally . . . recognizable to others.” Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940,
945 (9th Cir. 2007); Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2005).
Gurung has not defined the boundaries of the “successful businessmen” group or
presented evidence that the group is socially visible. Moreover, he has provided no
specific evidence that he was a member of any such group. See In re A-M-E &
J-G-U-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 69 (BIA 2007).
PETITION DENIED.
2