N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSE FELIPE ARE VALO-TIC AS, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-73285 Age n c y No. A088-016-851 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d April 22, 2015 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, B YB EE, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Jose Fe lipe Are va lo-Tic a s, a native and c i tiz e n

of El Sa lva dor, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ).



# F IL ED APR 27 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, Silay a v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th C ir. 2008), a

n d we de ny

in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Are va lo-Tic a s fa ile d to e sta

blish pa st pe rse c ution or a fe ar of future pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground ba se d on thre ats a nd e xtortion by

ga ng m e m be rs in El Sa lva dor. Se e Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ An a lie n’ s de sire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by c rim ina ls m otiva te d by the ft or ra

ndom viole n c e by

ga ng m e m b e rs be ars no ne xus to a

prote c te d ground.” ); se ealso Parussimov a v . Muk ase y , 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th C ir. 2009) (theRE AL ID Ac t “ re quire s tha t a prote c te d ground re pre se nt ‘ one c e ntra l re a son’ for an a sy lum a p plic ant’ s pe rse c ution” ). W e do not c onside r Are v a lo-Tic a s’ s soc ia l group c la im be c a use the B IA did not de c ide the issue , se eSantiago-Rodrigue z v . Holde r , 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th C ir. 2011) (re vie w lim ite d to thegrounds re l ie d on by the B IA), and Are va loTic a s doe s not c onte nd the B IA e rre d in finding tha t his soc ia l group c la i m

wa s not prope rly be fore it, se e M

artine z-Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 1996) (issue s not spe c ific a lly ra ise d a nd a rgue d in a pa rty ’ s ope n ing brie f are wa ive d). Thus, Are va lo-Tic a s’ s a sy lum and withholding of re

m ova l c l a im s fa il. Se e Molina-Morale

s v . IN S, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th C ir. 2001).
1 1 - 7 3 2 8 5

2W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the de nia l of Are va lo-Tic a s’ s C AT c la im ,

be c a use he fa ile d to e xha

ust his c ha lle nge be fore the B IA. Se eBarron , 358 F.3d a t 677-78. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 1 - 7 3 2 8 5 3