Case Name: Santos Raul ALVARENGA-ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-29
Citations: 407 F. App'x 207
Docket Number: No. 09-74055
Parties: Santos Raul ALVARENGA-ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 407
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
Santos Raul ALVARENGA-ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-74055.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
Filed Dec. 29, 2010.
Richard Clay Mendez, Esquire, Law Offices of Mendez & Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Edward C. Durant, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Santos Raul Alvarenga-Alvarado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals which dismissed his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
We reject Alvarenga-Alvarado's claim that he is eligible for asylum based on his membership in a particular social group, namely persons who fear gang activity. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.2008).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because petitioner has not established it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the El Salvador government. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 748.
We reject petitioner's due process claim because the BIA provided sufficient reasons for affirming the IJ, and there was no due process violation. See Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 n. 6 (9th Cir.2004).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Alvarenga-Alvarado's remaining contentions — that he is entitled to asylum and withholding relief based on imputed anti-gang political opinion, and he is a member of a social group composed of individuals who suffer persecution by gangs due to former military service — because Alvarenga-Alvarado failed to raise those claims before the agency, and therefore he did not exhaust the claims. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.