FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 13 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARVIN ALEXANDER VALLE, No. 10-70728
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-347-486
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Marvin Alexander Valle, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se
for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, dismissing Valle’s
*
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).
appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Valle contends that he was persecuted by gangs based on his resistance to
gang recruitment, and alleges that his family constitutes a social group because his
brother is a gang member. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination
that Valle failed to establish that any harm he suffered, or fears, from gangs is on
account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84
(1992) (forced recruitment by persecutors seeking to fill their ranks is not
necessarily persecution on account of political opinion); Barrios v. Holder, 581
F.3d 849, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner who resisted gang recruitment did not
establish persecution on account of social group or political opinion); Santos-
Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293
F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2002) (no compelling evidence the applicant was
persecuted on account of his family membership).
Valle alleges that his due process rights were violated by the immigration
judge, but the record demonstrates that Valle received a full and fair hearing. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (no due process violation where
there is no showing of prejudice.)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-70728