FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANKLIN ESMELIN PAZ-DISCUA, No. 09-71877
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-987-478
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Franklin Esmelin Paz-Discua, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
*
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).
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.
We reject Paz-Discua’s claim that he is eligible for asylum based on his
political opinion or membership in a particular social group. See Santos-Lemus v.
Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 746-47 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting petitioner’s contention
that he was persecuted on account of his political opinion based on his refusal to
join a gang); Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 860-62 (9th Cir. 2009)
(rejecting as a particular social group “young Honduran men who have been
recruited by [a gang], but who refuse to join.”); 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”). Paz-
Discua’s arguments to distinguish his case from Santos-Lemus and Ramos-Lopez
are unavailing. Accordingly, because Paz-Discua failed to demonstrate that he was
persecuted or faces persecution on account of a protected ground, we deny the
petition. See Ramos-Lopez, 563 F.3d at 862.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-71877