Alvarez-Guillen v. Holder Jr.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 28 2009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