Case Name: Jose Mercedes AYALA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-30
Citations: 358 F. App'x 853
Docket Number: No. 08-71869
Parties: Jose Mercedes AYALA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 853–854

Head Matter:
Jose Mercedes AYALA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71869.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Nov. 30, 2009.
Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Joshua E. Braunstein, Esquire, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nicole N. Murley, OIL, Molly Louise Debusschere, Trial, Emily Anne Radford, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Mercedes Ayala, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming the immigration judge's denial of his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel reversal of the IJ's conclusion that petitioner failed to establish that the harm he suffered at the hands of gang members in El Salvador was on account of a protected ground. See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 858-62 (9th Cir.2009) (concluding that resistance to gang activity is not a particular social group for the purpose of establishing nexus to a protected ground). Accordingly, petitioner's asylum claim fails. Id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.