Luis Alfredo Trejo-Benjarano 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).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ALFREDO TREJO-BENJARANO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72096
Agency No. A098-117-610
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Luis Alfredo Trejo-Benjarano, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily
affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
FILED
FEB 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

JK/Research 07-72096 2
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85
(9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that the harassment and
threats Trejo-Benjarano received at the hands of the gang members in El Salvador
who stole soda bottles from his company vehicle in one incident, and followed him
home and broke all of his windows in another incident, did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
because there is no evidence the gang members were motivated by any protected
ground, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of Trejo-Benjarano’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-
84 (1992).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Trejo-Benjarano is
ineligible for CAT relief, because he failed to establish that it is more likely than
not that he would be tortured if he returned to El Salvador. See Singh v. Gonzales,
439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

JK/Research 07-72096 3
Trejo-Benjarano’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by
issuing a streamlined decision is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350
F.3d 845, 848 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --