NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
HERMES ENRIQUE VASQUEZ- No. 08-71943
AGUIRRE,
Agency No. A098-112-083
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Hermes Enrique Vasquez-Aguirre, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
*
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).
JLA/Research
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 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 factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
We reject Vasquez-Aguirre’s claim that he is eligible for asylum based on
his membership in a particular social group, namely, young El Salvadoran males
who resist efforts by gangs to recruit them or extort money from them. See 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); Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 860-62 (9th Cir. 2009)
(rejecting as a particular social group “young Honduran men who have been
recruited by [a gang], but who refuse to join”).
Accordingly, because Vasquez-Aguirre failed to demonstrate that he was
persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to his asylum
claim. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009).
JLA/Research 2 08-71943
Vasquez-Aguirre’s due process claim fails because he has no cognizable
liberty interest in discretionary relief from removal. See Tovar-Landin v. Ashcroft,
361 F.3d 1164, 1167 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Briseno v. INS, 192 F.3d 1320, 1323
(9th Cir. 1999) (deportable aliens have no substantive due process right to
residence in the United States).
We lack jurisdiction to review both Vasquez-Aguirre’s challenge to the IJ’s
corroboration finding and his claim for humanitarian asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief, because he failed to exhaust these arguments before the
BIA. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (per
curiam); see also Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
JLA/Research 3 08-71943