T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T EL SA YA NI RA GO NZALEZ HERNAN DEZ, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 74980 A ge nc yN o. A 079- 038- 705 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A ugus t9, 2011 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: H U G , S K O P IL , an d B E E Z E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E l s aY a ni r aG onz a l e z - H e rna nde z pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the de c i s i on of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( B I A ) de ny i ng he rappl i c a t i on f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l . T he B I A he l d tha tP e t i t i one rdi d note s t abl i s h tha ts he 

# FI LED DE C 22 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

w as pers ec ut ed on ac coun tof a prot ec t ed grou nd . P et i t i on erar gu es thatthe B IA e rr e d b y o v e r lo o k in g e v id e n c e th a t s h e w a s p e r s e c u te d o n a c c o u n t o f h e rr e lig io n . B e c au s e th e B I A’ s d e c i s i o n i s s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n th e r e c o r d , we d e n y P e t i t i o n e r ’ s ap p l i c a t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on ove rthi s c a s e unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. T he f a c t s of the case are k n o w n t o th e p art i es. W e rep eatth em o n l y as n ecessary. I W he n the B I A ha s c onduc t e d a n i nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the I m m i gr a t i on J u d g e ’s ( I J ) o p in io n , th is c o u rt r e v ie w s th e B I A ’s d e c is io n . Si no tes -Cruz v . G on zales , 46 8 F . 3d 11 90 , 11 94 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). W hen the B IA has a do pt ed port i ons of

the I J ’ s opi ni on a s i t s ow n, thi s c ourt“ tr e a t [ s ] the I J ’ s s t a t e m e nt s of re as on s a s the B IA ’ s and re vi ew [s ] the IJ ’ s dec i si on . ” I d. T he B I A ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha ta n a l i e n ha s note s t abl i s he d e l i gi bi l i tyf or as yl um or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al i s r evi ew ed un der the subst ant i al evi dence s ta n d a r d . Zehat

ye v. G on zales , 45 3 F . 3d 11 82 , 11 84 –8 5 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). “ U nd er the s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s t a nda r d, ‘ a dm i ni s tr a t i ve f i ndi ngs of

f a c ta r e c onc l us i ve unl e s s a ny r e a s onabl e a dj udi c a t orw oul d be c om pe l l e d t o c onc l ude t o the contrary . ’ ” I

d. at11 85 (quo t i ng 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(b)(4)(B)).3 II T o est abl i sh el i gi bi l i ty f or as yl um , an al i en m ustshow thatshe f ac es pers ec ut i on “ on ac coun tof ra ce , re l i gi on , nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul ar soci al grou p, or po l i t i ca l op i ni on . ” N av as v . I . N . S. , 21 7 F . 3d 64 6, 65 4 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). T o est abl i sh el i gi bi l i ty f or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , an al i en m ustshow that her “ ‘ l i fe or fr ee do m w ou l d b e threa t ened’ on ac coun tof on e of the sa m e prot ec t ed grou nd s thatappl y und erthe as yl um st atut e. ” A l- H ar biv . I . N . S. , 242 F . 3d 882, 8 8 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 3 ( h ) ) . T he B IA ’ s det erm i nat i on thatP et i t i on erw as t ar get ed by the M ar a S al vatrucha gang (M S ) f or cr i m i nal pu rposes , ra ther than o n acc ou ntof her re l i gi on , i s s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence. T he B IA corr ec t l y not ed thatthere is n o e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d s h o w in g th a t a n yM S m e m b e re v e rr e f e rr e d to P e t i t i one r ’ s r e l i gi on w hi l e thr e a t e ni ng he r . T he B I A a l s o not e d tha tthe ga ng m em bers never obj ec t ed t o P et i t i on er ’ s r el i gi ou s a ct i vi t i es and w er e onl y ang ry thatshe w as m aki ng negat i ve com m ent s abo utthe gang . T he B IA further not ed th atth e g an g m em b ers th reat en ed t o k i d n ap P et i t i o n er fro m h er u n cl e’ s h o u se because herun cl e w as w ea l thy. T hi s e vi dence s up po rt s the B IA ’ s c on cl usi on that M S t ar get ed P et i t i on ert o further i t s c ri m i nal agenda rather than b ec ause of her re li g io n . R ev iew ed u n d erth e d ef er en ti al su b stan ti al ev id en ce stan d ar d , th e B IA ’s4

de c i s i on i s nots o uns upport e d bythe r e c or d tha t“ a nyr e a s onabl e a dj udi c a t or w ou l d b e c om pel l ed t o con cl ud e t o the contrary . ” See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( B ) . B ec ause P et i t i on erfa i l ed t o sho w thatshe w as t ar get ed on ac coun tof a pr ot e c t e d gr ound, the B I A di d note rri n hol di ng tha tP e t i t i one ri s i ne l i gi bl e f or asyl u m an d w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al . P et i t i o n er’ s p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew i s DE NI E D.