Case ID: f-appx_623/html/0507-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luis Alberto ESPINOZA-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72783.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
    
    Filed Dec. 15, 2015.
    Gerald Kenneth Roberts, Law Offices of Gerald K. Roberts, Pittsburg, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Trial, Jeffrey Bernstein, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Alberto Espinoza-Gomez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Si-laya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Espinoza-Gomez failed to establish that he was or would be harmed by gang members on account of an imputed political opinion. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Thus, Espinoza-Gomez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.2004).

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