N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT M AR VIN SANTOS-M AR TINEZ, Pe titione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-71715 Age n c y No. A095-691-660
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 3, 2015 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd TUNHEIM , *** C hie f Distric t Judge
. M arvin Sa

ntos-M a rtine z , a native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva d or, pe titions for
re vie w of a

n a d ve rse de c ision of theB oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a ls (" B IA" ). W e



# F IL ED
OCT 13 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tion 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 tha

t this c a se is suita

b le for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

b le John R . Tunhe im , C hie f Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of M inne sota , sitting by de signa tion.re vie w de novo the B IA’ s le ga l de te rm inations a nd for substa

ntia l e v ide nc e the B IA’ s fa c tua l de te rm inations. Khuda ve rdy an v. Holde r, 778 F.3d 1101, 1105 (9th C ir. 2015). W e dism iss the pe t ition in pa rt a nd de n y it in pa rt. 1. The B IA prope rly

rule d tha t Pe titione r fa ile d to de m onstra te 10 y e ars of
c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se n c e . At the ve ry late st, Pe titione r stoppe d a c c ruing phy sic a l pre se n c e whe n

he a p pe are d be fore an im

m igration judge (" IJ" ) on Ja nua ry 17, 2006. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(d)(1)(A) (providing tha t the a c c rua l of phy sic a l pre s e nc e " sha ll be de e m e d to e nd . . . whe n the a l ie n is se rve d a notic e to a

p pe ar" in
re m ova l proc e e d ings); Ga rc ia -R a m ire z v. Gonz a le s, 423 F.3d 935, 937 n.3 (9th C ir. 2005) (pe r c uriam ) (stating tha t a notic e spe c ify ing the tim e an d loc at ion of
re m ova l proc e e d ings, whic h followe d the initia l notic e to a ppe a r in those proc e e dings, stoppe d the a c c rua l of phy sic a l pre se nc e ); Kha n v. Ashc roft, 374 F.3d 825, 828–29 (9th C ir. 2004) (holding tha t a ppe aranc e a t the sc he dule d he aring de m onstra

te s a c tua l notic e of the he aring). It is undispute d tha t Pe titione r ha d be e n

2in the Unite d State s for le ss tha n two y e ars whe n he a

p pe are d at tha

t initia l re m ova l he aring. 1 Thus, he is sta

tutorily ine ligible for c a

nc e l lation of re m ova l. 2. B e c a use Pe titione r subm itte d to the IJ a num be r of doc um e nts to e sta

blish his step fa the r’ s c ontinuous phy sic a l pre s e nc e in the Unite d State s, we have jurisdic tion to c onside r Pe titione r’ s a rgum e nt tha

t he c o uld m e e t the phy sic a l pre s e nc e re quire m e n t

for c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l by

im puting his ste

pfa the r’ s pre s e nc e to him se lf. B ut the Supre m e C ourt ha s fore c l ose d tha t a rgum e nt. Se e Holde r v. M artine z Gutie rre z , 132 S. C t. 2011, 2018 (2012) (de fe rring to theB IA’ s de te rm i na tion tha

t a n a pplic ant for c anc e lla

tion of re m o va l " m

ust m e e t the sta tutory c o nditions [of 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(a )] inde pe nde ntly , without re ly ing on a pa re nt’ s history " ). 3. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s holding tha

t Pe titione r’ s a sy lum
a pplic a tion wa s tim e -barre d be c a use he fa ile d to e s ta

blish e ithe r that

c ha nge d
c ountry c onditions in El Sa

lva dor m a te ria lly

a ffe c te d his e ligibility

for a sy lum

or that the se rvic e of the notic e to a ppe ar in re m ova l proc e e dings wa s a n

1 M o re ove r, to the e xte nt tha t Pe titione r c ha lle nge s the suffic ie nc y of the notic e to a

ppe ar, he wa s se nt a d ditiona l he aring notic e s shortly a fte rwa rd tha t indic a te d the date an d

tim e of his initia

l he aring. Se e Popa

v. Holde r, 571 F.3d 890, 895–96 (9th C ir. 2009) (" [W ] e hold a Notic e to Appe a

r that fa ils to inc lude the d a te and tim e of a

n a lie n’ s de porta

tion he aring, but tha

t sta te s tha t a date and tim e will be se t

late r, is not de fe c tive so long a s a notic e of the he aring is in fa c t late r se nt to thea lie n." ). 3" e xtra ordina ry c irc um sta

nc e [] " tha t justifie d his fa ilure to a

pply within oney e ar of his a rriva l in the Unite d Stat e s. 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(2)(D). 4. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s de c i sion tha t Pe t itione r fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t he wa s pe rse c ute d

or ha d a we l l-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution
on a c c o unt of a

prote c te d ground. Fe a

r of " random

viole nc e by

ga n g m e m be rs be ars no ne xus to a

prote c te d ground," Ze tino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010), a

nd those " g e ne ra lly

oppose d to ga

ngs or re sista

n t to ga ng re c ruitm e nt" do not c o nstitutea

soc i a l group, He nrique z -R i va s v. Holde r, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba

nc ). And be c a

use Pe titione r ha s fa ile d to de m onstra te tha t he is e ligible for a sy lum , he ne c e ssa rily ha s fa ile d to m e e t the m ore stringe nt sta nda rd for withholding of rem ova l. Pe dro-M a te o v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th C ir. 2000). 5. Issue s pe rta ining to Pe titione r’ s hum anita rian a sy lum

and C onve ntion Aga inst Torturec la im s a

re une xha uste d, so we la c k

jurisdic tion to c onside r the m . 8 U.S.C . § 1252(d)(1). 6. W e have c onside re d Pe titione r’ s othe r argum e nts a nd find the m unpe rsua sive
. Pe tition DISM ISSE D in par t and DE N I E D in par t.

4