Erick Aleman-Cabera v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 424 F. App'x 683 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERICK NOE ALEMAN-CABRERA, No. 09-72234
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-470-162
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Erick Noe Aleman-Cabrera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro
se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
*
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).
of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (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 Aleman-Cabrera 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.”)
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on
the Board’s finding that Aleman-Cabrera 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 09-72234