FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE FRANCISCO CALDERON- No. 09-70667
MONROY,
Agency No. A098-120-256
Petitioner,
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.
Jose Francisco Calderon-Monroy, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”), affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law, 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 Calderon-Monroy’s claim that he is eligible for asylum based on
his anti-gang political opinion and membership in a particular social group. See
Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854 (9th Cir. 2009) (refusal to join gangs does
not constitute a political opinion or membership in a particular social group);
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (“young men in El
Salvador resisting gang violence” does not constitute a particular social group).
Accordingly, because Calderon-Monroy failed to establish that he was persecuted
or fears persecution on account of a protected ground, his asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail. See Barrios, 581 F.3d at 856.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, because
Calderon-Monroy did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of,
or with the consent or acquiescence of the El Salvadorean government. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
09-70667
Finally, Calderon-Monroy’s due process claim fails because not only did he
fail to raise this before the BIA, but the record also shows that he did, in fact,
testify.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
09-70667