FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FLOR MARIA HERRERA-ESCOBAR, No. 08-70321
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-101-140
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.
Flor Maria Herrera-Escobar, 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 decision denying her 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).
PR/Research
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 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
factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that, even assuming Herrera-Escobar
testified credibly, she is not eligible for asylum based on her membership in a
particular social group, namely, bus employee cashiers who resist criminal gang
extortion. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting
as a particular social group “young males in Guatemala who are targeted for gang
recruitment but refuse because they disagree with the gang’s criminal activities”);
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting as a
particular social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence”)
(internal quotation omitted). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
finding that Herrera-Escobar did not demonstrate the threats she experienced from
gang members demanding money established past persecution or a well-founded
fear of future persecution on account of her political opinion. See Santos-Lemus,
PR/Research 2 08-70321
542 F.3d at 746-47; see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th
Cir. 2009) (a protected ground has to be “one central reason” for persecution).
Accordingly, because Herrera-Escobar failed to demonstrate that she was
persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to her asylum
and withholding of removal claims. See Barrios, 581 F.3d at 856.
Herrera-Escobar does not raise any arguments in her opening brief regarding
the agency’s denial of her CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
PR/Research 3 08-70321