Case ID: f-appx_366/html/0778-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luis Pedro GARCIA-VICENTE, aka Jaime Sergio Hernandez-Gomez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70189.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 22, 2010.
    
      Elizabeth Do Kurlan, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., 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

Luis Pedro Garcia-Vicente, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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, and withholding of removal.

We reject Garcia-Vicente’s claim that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on his membership in a particular social group, namely Guatemalan males who refuse to join gangs, or based on his anti-gang political opinion. 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”); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir.2009) (refusal to join a gang does not amount to political opinion.)

Accordingly, because Garcia-Vicente failed to demonstrate that he was persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition for review.

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