Court Opinion

ID: 3064288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-14 22:16:39.544584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:20.697356
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FEB 29 2012

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID DE JESUS CANALES                            No. 10-71212
SANCHEZ, aka David De Jesus Sanchez,
                                                  Agency No. A094-449-419
               Petitioner,

  v.                                              MEMORANDUM *

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted February 21, 2012 **

Before:        FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

       David de Jesus Canales Sanchez, 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

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for

review.

      Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding

of removal because Sanchez failed to show his alleged persecutors threatened him

on account of a protected ground. His fear of future persecution based on an actual

or imputed anti-gang or anti-crime opinion is not on account of the protected

ground of either membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

Ramos Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009); Santos-Lemus v.

Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008); see 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”); Sangha v. INS,

103 F.3d 1482, 1486-87 (9th Cir. 1997) (requiring causal connection between

alleged persecution and protected ground, and explaining that nexus cannot be

inferred merely by acts of random violence).

      Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on

the Board’s finding that Sanchez did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the

instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the El Salvadoran

government. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                           2                                     10-71212