FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE DAGOBERTO CHAVEZ- No. 08-70347
ROMERO,
Agency No. A098-404-206
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Dagoberto Chavez-Romero, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
*
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).
MVD/Inventory
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings
for substantial evidence, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.
2008), and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding
of removal because Chavez-Romero failed to show his alleged persecutors
threatened him on account of a protected ground. His fear of future persecution
based on an actual or imputed anti-gang or anti-crime opinion is not on account of
the protected ground of either membership in a particular social group or political
opinion. See Ramos Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009);
Santos-Lemus at 745-46; see 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.”) Because Chavez-Romero’s asylum claim
fails based on lack of nexus to a protected ground, we need not consider the
government’s contentions that he waived his challenges to the Board’s finding of
no past persecution or fear of future persecution, or Chavez-Romero’s challenge to
the Board’s finding he could internally relocate.
MVD/Inventory 2 08-70347
Because Chavez-Romero has not “specifically and distinctly argued and
raised” the issue of CAT relief, he has waived that claim. See Castro-Perez v.
Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
MVD/Inventory 3 08-70347