Jose Miranda Artiaga 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE MIRANDA ARTIAGA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72201
Agency No. A078-025-482
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Jose Miranda Artiaga, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
JUL 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72201 2
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 for substantial evidence factual findings,
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the
petition for review.
Artiaga did not allege he experienced past persecution or any harm in El
Salvador. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Artiaga
failed to establish a nexus between the persecution he fears from gang members in
El Salvador and a statutorily protected ground. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d
849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148,
1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that “returning Mexicans from the United
States,” is too broad to qualify as a cognizable social group). Accordingly,
Artiaga’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Artiaga does not challenge the agency’s denial of his asylum application as
time-barred or the denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument in a party’s
opening brief are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --