Case ID: f-appx_316/html/0626-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mario FLORES AUSENCIO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72698.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 4, 2009.
    Mario Flores Ausencio, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Regina Byrd, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mario Flores Ausencio, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 861-62 (9th Cir.2001), and deny the petition for review.

In his brief to the BIA, Flores Ausencio raised several gang-related arguments for the first time and he also raises those arguments in his opening brief. There is no evidence in the record to support these arguments.

On September 21, 2006, Flores Ausen-cio’s motion for stay of removal was denied; therefore, Flores Ausencio’s subsequent motion to dismiss respondent’s opposition to the stay of removal, filed on October 3, 2006, is moot.

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