Case Name: Fausto TELLEZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-06
Citations: 471 F. App'x 572
Docket Number: No. 09-70741
Parties: Fausto TELLEZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 572–573

Head Matter:
Fausto TELLEZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70741.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012
Filed March 6, 2012.
Alan Mark Kaufman, Esquire, Kaufman & Kaufman, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Erica Miles, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, 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
Fausto Tellez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA's determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of Tellez-Gareia's withholding of removal claim because Tellez-Garcia failed to establish the harm he suffered, or fears, from criminal gangs in Mexico is on account of his membership in a particular social group. See id. at 856 (evidence supported conclusion that gang victimized the petitioner for economic and personal reasons rather than on account of a protected ground); Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir.2001) ("Asylum generally is not available to victims of civil strife, unless they are singled out on account of a protected ground."); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) ("[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent 'one central reason' for an asylum applicant's persecution"). Accordingly, Tellez-Garcia's withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.