Oscar Ramirez-Ramos v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 396 F. App'x 403 ( 2010 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
OSCAR ARMANDO RAMIREZ- No. 08-71169
RAMOS,
Agency No. A098-492-131
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Armando Ramirez-Ramos, native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992), and de
novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th
Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the threats Ramirez-
Ramos received from gang members do not rise to the level of persecution. See
Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports
the agency’s finding that Ramirez-Ramos failed to establish past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-
41 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent
‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); see also Santos-
Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-47 (9th Cir. 2008) (harm suffered as part of
“general criminality and civil unrest” and for “economic and personal reasons” was
not persecution on account of membership in a particular social group or on
account of a political opinion).
Because Ramirez-Ramos failed to meet the lower burden of proof for
asylum, it follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2 08-71169
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Ramirez-Ramos has not established it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured if returned to El Salvador. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-
68 (9th Cir. 2009).
Ramirez’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by not
providing a reasoned decision lacks merit because the BIA adopted the IJ’s
reasoned, seven-page decision. See Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th
Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[W]hen ‘the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ, we review
the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA.’”); cf. Garcia-Martinez v. Ashcroft,
371 F.3d 1066, 1078-79 (9th Cir. 2004) (BIA’s streamlining procedure does not
violate due process because the court reviews the IJ’s decision as the final agency
decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-71169