Noe Granados-Romero v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 400 F. App'x 282 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOE ANTONIO GRANADOS- No. 09-73875
ROMERO,
Agency No. A098-355-725
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Noe Antonio Granados-Romero, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
which dismissed his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his applications
*
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).
for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against
Torture.
We reject Granados-Romero’s claim that he is eligible for asylum based on
his membership in a particular social group, namely persons who suffer
persecution due to gang activity and the El Salvador government’s inability to
control gangs. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.
2008) (rejecting as a social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang
violence”). We also reject Granados-Romero’s political opinion claim based on
his resistance to the gangs. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84
(1992) (resisting forced recruitment does not necessarily constitute persecution on
account of political opinion); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir.
2009) (resistance to gang recruitment does not constitute political opinion).
Because Granados-Romero failed to demonstrate that he was persecuted on
account of a protected ground, we uphold the agency’s denial of his withholding of
removal claim. Id. at 856.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Granados-Romero’s contention that he is
entitled to asylum and withholding relief based on his family constituting a social
group because Granados-Romero failed to raise the claim before the BIA, and
2 09-73875
therefore he did not exhaust the claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cit. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
3 09-73875