Marcos Antonio Santos- Vasquez v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
MVD/Inventory
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCOS ANTONIO SANTOS-
VASQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74332
Agency No. A097-818-398
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Marcos Antonio Santos-Vasquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
FILED
DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 MVD/Inventory 08-74332
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 Santos-Vasquez 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. See Ramos Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009);
Santos-Lemus 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.”) Because Santos-Vasquez’s contention is
foreclosed by our case law, we deny his request to remand for further development
of the record.
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on
the Board’s finding that Santos-Vasquez 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).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 MVD/Inventory 08-74332
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --