FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 22 2011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
MARIA DE LOS ANGELES MEJIA DE No. 10-70081
ZAMORA; et al.,
Agency Nos. A098-934-140
Petitioners, A098-934-141
A098-934-142
v. A098-934-144
A098-934-145
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent. MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Maria de los Angeles Mejia de Zamora and her family, natives and citizens
of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners failed to
establish the extortion demands and threats from gang members were on account of
their membership in a particular social group, political opinion, or any other
protected ground. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir.
2008) (evidence supported conclusion that gang victimized the petitioner for
economic and personal reasons rather than on account of a protected ground);
Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Asylum generally is not
available to victims of civil strife, unless they are singled out on account of a
protected ground.”); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th
Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one
central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, because
petitioners failed to demonstrate they were persecuted or fear persecution on
account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to petitioners’ asylum and
withholding of removal claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-70081