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NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 18 2011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
YENI LISSETTE MARTINEZ- No. 10-71103
ALEGRIA,
Agency No. A098-960-528
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.
Yeni Lissette Martinez-Alegria, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“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 in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Martinez-Alegria contends that she faces persecution by gangs because she
was previously targeted. We reject Martinez-Alegria’s claim that she is eligible for
asylum based on her membership in a particular social group. See Barrios v.
Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 832-53 (9th Cir. 2009) (refusal to join gangs does not
establish membership in a particular social group); Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967
(9th Cir. 1998) (generalized lawlessness and violence without particularized risk to
the petitioner is generally insufficient to support a claim of asylum). Accordingly,
Martinez-Alegria’s asylum claim fails. Accordingly, because Martinez-Alegria
failed to establish that she was persecuted or fears persecution on account of a
protected ground, her asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Barrios,
581 F.3d at 856.
10-71103
We do not consider Martinez-Alegria’s claim for CAT relief, because she
failed to argue the issue in her opening brief. Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in party’s
opening brief are waived).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Alegria’s claim that the IJ
violated her due process rights by failing to give appropriate weight to supporting
documents, because she failed to raise this argument before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
10-71103