FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 05 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANIRA MARITZA RAMIREZ No. 08-71029
FLORES, AKA Paz Oralia Moreno De
Cuevas, AKA Yanira Maritza Ramirez- Agency No. A098-805-757
Vazquez,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM *
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
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.
Yanira Maritza Ramirez Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding
*
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).
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008).
We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Ramirez’s CAT claim
because Ramirez failed to show it is more likely than not that she will be tortured
with the acquiescence of the El Salvadoran government if returned to El Salvador.
See id. at 748. Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Ramirez’s CAT claim.
We reject Ramirez’s claim that she is eligible for asylum and withholding of
removal based on her anti-gang political opinion or membership in a particular
social group of individuals who oppose the criminal acts of gangs. See id. at
745-46 (rejecting as a particular social group “young men in El Salvador resisting
gang violence,” and holding that general aversion to gangs is not a political
opinion); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real
ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an
asylum applicant’s persecution”). However, in finding Ramirez was not targeted
because she is a woman, the agency did not have the benefit of our intervening
decision in Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 669 (9th Cir. 2010) (remanding for
the agency to determine “whether women in Guatemala constitute a particular
2 08-71029
social group, and, if so, whether [petitioner] has demonstrated a fear of
persecution” on account of her membership in a protected group). We remand for
the BIA to assess Ramirez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims in light of
Perdomo in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per
curiam).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 08-71029