Oscar Arevalo-Castillo v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 385 F. App'x 758 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUL 01 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    OSCAR AREVALO-CASTILLO and                         No. 08-75162
    CARLOS ARISTIDE AREVALO-
    CASTILLO,                                          Agency Nos. A099-534-962
    A099-534-963
    Petitioners,
    v.                                               MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted June 29, 2010 **
    San Francisco, California
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    Oscar Arevalo-Castillo and his brother Carlos Aristide Arevalo-Castillo,
    natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals’ denial of their application for asylum.
    *
    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).
    Petitioners contend they were entitled to asylum relief based on their
    membership in a social group, namely their family, or young people who were
    approached by gangs. Young people from Central American countries who
    refused to join or cooperate with a gang do not constitute a “social group” for
    asylum purposes. See Barrios v. Holder, 
    581 F.3d 849
    , 854-55 fn. 3 (9th Cir.
    2009); Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 
    563 F.3d 855
    , 860-62 (9th Cir. 2009); Santos-
    Lemus v. Mukasey, 
    542 F.3d 738
    , 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008). In addition, although a
    family may suffice as a “social group,” Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS, 
    801 F.2d 1571
    ,
    1576 (9th Cir. 1986), not all family links will “per se suffice to confer ‘particular
    social group’ membership.” Lin v. Ashcroft, 
    377 F.3d 1014
    , 1028 (9th Cir. 2004).
    In this case, petitioners failed to show that the gang members knew that their uncle
    and grandmother were members of their family, or that the threats experienced by
    the grandmother and uncle constituted targeted persecution. In addition, the uncle
    and grandmother have remained unharmed since petitioners left El Salvador. See
    Santos-Lemus, 
    542 F.3d at 743-44
     (family members who remained unharmed is
    substantial evidence that petitioners lack a well-founded fear of future persecution
    based on family membership).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                     08-75162
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-75162

Citation Numbers: 385 F. App'x 758

Judges: Alarcon, Graber, Leavy

Filed Date: 7/1/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023