Ambrocio Amilcar Cifuentes- Puac 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMBROCIO AMILCAR CIFUENTES-
PUAC,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72745
Agency No. A098-656-741
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.
Ambrocio Amilcar Cifuentes-Puac, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum,
FILED
APR 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-72745 2
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except
to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing
statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004).
We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
We reject Cifuentes-Puac’s claim that he is eligible for asylum and
withholding of removal based on his anti-gang political opinion or his membership
in a particular social group of people who refuse to join gangs. See Barrios v.
Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d
738, 745-47 (9th Cir. 2008). Cifuentes-Puac’s claim that he is eligible for asylum
and withholding of removal based on his membership in a particular social group
consisting of his family also fails. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089,
1095 (9th Cir. 2002) (no compelling evidence the applicant was persecuted on
account of his family membership). Because Cifuentes-Puac failed to demonstrate
he was persecuted or fears persecution 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.

-- 2 of 3 --

08-72745 3
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Cifuentes-Puac failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured
in Guatemala. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
Lastly, contrary to Cifuentes-Puac’s contentions, the BIA did not conduct
improper analysis when making its political opinion and CAT findings. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i)-(ii).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --