Darwin Mazariegos-Diaz 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).
KY/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARWIN MAZARIEGOS-DIAZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 07-73575
08-70330
Agency No. A078-064-843
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions, Darwin Mazariegos-Diaz, a native and
citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of both the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his
FILED
JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

KY/Research
07-73575 2
application for asylum and withholding of removal (No. 07-73575), and the BIA’s
order denying his motion reconsider (No. 08-70330). Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992), we review for abuse
of discretion the denial of motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d
960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we review de novo claims of due process violations,
Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny in part and dismiss
in part petition No. 07-73575, and we deny the petition No. 08-70330.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mazariegos-
Diaz did not establish past persecution on account of a protected ground. See
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481-82. Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that Mazariegos-Diaz failed to establish a well-founded
fear of future persecution on account of a membership in particular social group,
namely young Guatemalan men vulnerable to gangs and gang violence. See
Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-55 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting as a particular
social group “young males in Guatemala who are targeted for gang recruitment but
refuse because they disagree with the gang’s criminal activities”); Santos-Lemus v.
Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting as a particular social

-- 2 of 4 --

KY/Research
07-73575 3
group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence”) (internal quotation
omitted). We lack jurisdiction to review Mazariegos-Diaz’s contention that he has
a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of an imputed political
opinion because it is unexhausted. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th
Cir. 2004). Accordingly, because Mazariegos-Diaz failed to demonstrate that he
was persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to his
asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Barrios, 581 F.3d at 856.
Because Mazariegos-Diaz failed to establish past persecution on account of a
protected ground, his humanitarian asylum claims also fails. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(iii).
The agency did not violate Mazariegos-Diaz’s due process rights because the
record reflects that he was given a “full and fair hearing” and a “reasonable
opportunity to present evidence on his behalf.” See Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971.
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mazariegos-Diaz’s
motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact
in the BIA’s August 9, 2007 order that would justify granting relief. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(b)(1).

-- 3 of 4 --

KY/Research
07-73575 4
No. 07-73575: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part;
DISMISSED in part.
No. 08-70330: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --