Cruz-Diaz v. Holder , 409 F. App'x 998 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAVIER ALEJANDRO CRUZ-DIAZ; No. 07-72695
MARINIA GABRIELA CRUZ-DIAZ,
Agency Nos. A079-638-296
Petitioners, A079-638-297
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Javier Alejandro Cruz-Diaz and Marinia Gabriela Cruz-Diaz, natives and
citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “We
review findings of fact for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo.”
Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary
circumstances excused the untimely filing of petitioners’ asylum applications. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181 (9th Cir.
2008); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657–58 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly,
we deny the petition as to their asylum claims.
Petitioners’ claims for withholding of removal also fail, because substantial
evidence supports the determinations that Javier did not suffer past persecution, see
Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339–40 (9th Cir. 1995), and that the harm Marinia
suffered was not on account of a protected ground, see Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d
859, 865–67 (9th Cir. 2001); and the evidence does not compel the conclusion that
either petitioner faces a clear probability of future persecution on account of a
protected ground, see Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 855–56 (9th Cir. 2009)
(rejecting a petitioner’s asylum claim where he “failed to present evidence that he
was politically or ideologically opposed to the ideals espoused by the gang that
2 07-72695
recruited him (or to gangs in general), or that the gang imputed to him any
particular political belief”); Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 860–62 (9th
Cir. 2009) (rejecting, as a particular social group, “young Honduran men who have
been recruited by [a gang], but who refuse to join”); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542
F.3d 738, 742–43 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Where the claimed group membership is the
family, a family member’s continuing safety is an even more persuasive factor in
considering a petitioner’s well-founded fear.”).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
petitioners failed to establish that it is more likely than not they will be tortured by
or with the acquiescence of government officials if returned to Honduras. See
Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747–48. We therefore deny the petition as to their CAT
claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-72695