Case Name: Milton Alexander CORTEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-04
Citations: 369 F. App'x 818
Docket Number: No. 08-73207
Parties: Milton Alexander CORTEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 369
Pages: 818–819

Head Matter:
Milton Alexander CORTEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73207.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 4, 2010.
Raul Gomez, Esquire, Law Office of Raul Gomez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Monica Antoun, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD and M. SMITH, 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
Milton Alexander Cortez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008), and 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); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). Accordingly, petitioner's asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.