Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60475

Summary Calendar

PEDRO JUAN VASQUEZ-AJPACAJA,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A094 939 823

Before GARWOOD, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pedro Juan Vasquez-Ajpacaja, a native and citizen of Guatemala, has filed

a petition for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum and

withholding of removal. Vasquez-Ajpacaja alleged that he had been persecuted

in Guatemala and feared future persecution on account of his membership in two

social groups -- people who are against the ways of and are harassed by gangs

and people who are heirs or family members of property owners. He presented

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 23, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-60475 Document: 00511090420 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/23/2010
No. 09-60475

2

evidence that he was robbed by members of a gang (none of whom he knew),

those gang members wanted to rob him on a second occasion, and his family had

been involved in a property dispute with their neighbors, which resulted in his

father’s murder. There is no evidence he was known to be (or was) “against the

ways of gangs.”

As the BIA denied Vasquez-Ajpacaja’s application for immigration relief

based in part on the IJ’s opinion and in part on its own findings, we will review

both decisions. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). We

review an immigration court’s rulings of law de novo and its findings of fact to

determine if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. at 594.

Both the BIA and the IJ determined that the harm Vasquez-Ajpacaja

suffered in Guatemala did not rise to the level of persecution and that he was

thus unable to establish that he was persecuted or had a well-founded fear that

he would be persecuted should he return to his native country. The evidence

does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182,

186 (5th Cir. 2004). 

The BIA and IJ also determined that Vasquez-Ajpacaja failed to establish

that the harm he suffered in Guatemala occurred as a result of his race, religion,

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Vasquez-Ajpacaja has not demonstrated that he is a member of social group

protected under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). See Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d

405, 414-15 (5th Cir. 2006); see also e.g., Sorto-De Portillo v. Holder, No. 09-

60278, 2010 WL 10948, at *2 (5th Cir. 2010) (“Numerous other cases, like the

IJ's opinion in this case, have held that one's personal anti-gang values or

antagonistic relationship with gangs does not amount to a common immutable

characteristic establishing a particular social group.”).

As Vasquez-Ajpacaja has not shown that he is a refugee as defined in

§ 1101(a)(42)(A)), he is not eligible for asylum. See Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747,

749 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, he cannot meet the more stringent standard

Case: 09-60475 Document: 00511090420 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/23/2010
No. 09-60475

3

of eligibility for withholding of removal. See Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188

(5th Cir. 1994).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Case: 09-60475 Document: 00511090420 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/23/2010