Case ID: f-appx_442/html/0313-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Marvin Alexander VALLE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70728.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 13, 2011.
    Marvin Alexander Valle, North Hollywood, CA, pro se.
    Judith Roberta O’Sullivan, Esquire, OIL, Lisa Morinelli, DOJ-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: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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

Valle contends that he was persecuted by gangs based on his resistance to gang recruitment, and alleges that his family constitutes a social group because his brother is a gang member. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Valle failed to establish that any harm he suffered, or fears, from gangs is on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (forced recruitment by persecutors seeking to fill their ranks is not necessarily persecution on account of political opinion); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 855-56 (9th Cir.2009) (petitioner who resisted gang recruitment did not establish persecution on account of social group or political opinion); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir.2008); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir.2002) (no compelling evidence the applicant was persecuted on account of his family membership).

Valle alleges that his due process rights were violated by the immigration judge, but the record demonstrates that Valle received a full and fair hearing. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (no due process violation where there is no showing of prejudice.)

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