Jose Cilidonio Figeroa- Gonzalez, a.k.a. Jose Celedonio Figeroa- Gonzalez v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

08-71747Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit15.04.2010

Gesamter Gesetzestext

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE CILIDONIO FIGEROA-
GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Jose Celedonio
Figeroa- Gonzalez,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71747
Agency No. A097-831-347
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Cilidonio Figeroa-Gonzalez, native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
FILED
APR 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71747 2
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial
evidence, Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005), we deny the
petition for review.
The agency’s finding that Figeroa-Gonzalez did not establish persecution on
account of a particular social group is supported by substantial evidence. See
Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d at 1171 (social group comprised of business owners
in Columbia who reject narco-trafficker demands too broad to qualify as a
particularized social group). Accordingly, Figeroa-Gonzalez’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See id. at 1172.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Figeroa-Gonzalez failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be
tortured in El Salvador. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.
2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.