Case ID: f-appx_366/html/0780-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Salvador AGUILAR-MORATAYA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74864.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 22, 2010.
    Love Macione Suh, Law Office of Love Macione, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
    Sheri Robyn Glaser, Trial, OIL, Anthony Paul Nicastro, Esquire, Trial, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Salvador Aguilar-Morataya, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture.

We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that petitioner has not established eligibility for asylum based on his membership is a particular social group. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-47 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting as a particular social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence”). In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioner did not demonstrate the threats he received from gang members demanding money established past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his political opinion. See id. at 746-47.

Because Aguilar-Morataya failed to demonstrate that he was persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to the asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009).

Finally, we agree with the BIA that Aguilar-Morataya was not entitled to CAT relief based on his failure to show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747-48.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.