FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL ANTONIO HERNANDEZ- No. 10-73922
RODRIGUEZ,
Agency No. A088-346-420
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012 **
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Antonio Hernandez-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
*
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).
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and we
review de novo the agency’s legal determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Hernandez-Rodriguez and his cousin testified that the cousin’s ex-boyfriend,
an El Salvadoran police officer, hit the cousin and threatened her because she
married someone else. After the threats, the cousin fled to the United States,
accompanied by Hernandez-Rodriguez.
Hernandez-Rodriguez does not contend that he suffered past persecution, but
he contends that he will be persecuted on account of his family relationship with
his cousin if he returns to El Salvador. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
denial of asylum and withholding of removal based on the fact that Hernandez-
Rodriguez’s family members remain in El Salvador and have not been harmed by
the ex-boyfriend. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743-44 (9th Cir.
2008) (where petitioner’s claim of persecution is based on family membership, the
fact that family members remain unharmed is “substantial evidence” that petitioner
lacks a well-founded fear of future persecution). Accordingly, Hernandez-
Rodriguez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
2 10-73922
We reject Hernandez-Rodriguez’s argument that the IJ erred by failing to
credit his cousin’s testimony. Contrary to Hernandez-Rodriguez’s assertion, the IJ
acknowledged the cousin’s fear that her ex-boyfriend would harm Hernandez-
Rodriguez if he returns to El Salvador. Regarding the other portions of the
cousin’s testimony, Hernandez-Rodriguez fails to overcome the presumption that
the IJ considered the evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-
96 (9th Cir. 2000).
We do not address Hernandez-Rodriguez’s contention that the IJ erred by
finding he failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group because the
BIA did not deny his claim on that basis. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
992 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[O]ur review is limited to the grounds actually relied upon by
the BIA . . . .”).
Finally, Hernandez-Rodriguez does not raise any argument challenging the
agency’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-73922