Valdemar Juarez-Altun v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 381 F. App'x 721 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VALDEMAR OSVALDO JUAREZ- No. 09-70400
ALTUN and FREDY HUMBERTO
JUAREZ-ALTUN, Agency Nos. A099-577-175
A099-577-176
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Valdemar Osvaldo Juarez-Altun and Fredy Humberto Juarez-Altun, natives
and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
*
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).
applications 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.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding
of removal because petitioners failed to show their alleged persecutors threatened
them on account of a protected ground. Petitioners’ fear of future persecution
based on their refusal to cooperate with gang members 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, 542 F.3d at 745-46; 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.”) And as the Board recognized, Fredy
testified he was threatened because of his official duties as a police officer which,
by itself, does not establish persecution on account of membership in a social
group or political opinion. See Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1028-29 (9th
Cir. 2000).
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on
the Board’s finding that petitioners did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at
2
the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan
government. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3