FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 04 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LESLY XIOMARA VILLEDA- No. 07-72160
MELARA; et al.,
Agency Nos. A098-599-022
Petitioners, A098-599-023
A098-599-024
v. A098-599-025
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Lesly Xiomara Villeda-Melara, Karla Yolanda Villeda-Melara, Seila Zulema
Villeda-Melara, and Carmen Maria Villeda-Melara, all natives and citizens of
Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
*
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).
applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Karla and Lesly
failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on
account of a protected ground. See 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”). Petitioners’ contention
that they are members of a particular social group comprised of “young women
opposed to gang violence” was not raised to the agency. See Velasco-Cervantes v.
Holder, 593 F.3d 975, 978 n.3 (9th Cir. 2010) (no jurisdiction to review
unexhausted political opinion claim). In addition, we lack jurisdiction to review
any challenge to the agency’s denial of Seila’s and Carmen’s asylum applications
because they did not exhaust the issues before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the petitioners’ asylum claims
fail.
2 07-72160
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.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 07-72160