Santos Artemio Vega-Aredo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SANTOS ARTEMIO VEGA-AREDO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70814
Agency No. A098-569-069
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Santos Artemio Vega-Aredo, a native and citizen of Peru,
petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
FEB 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 10-70814
(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding
of removal because Vega-Aredo failed to show his alleged persecutors threatened
him on account of a protected ground. His fear of future persecution based on an
actual or imputed anti-gang or anti-crime opinion is not on account of the protected
ground of either membership in a particular social group or political opinion.
Ramos Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009); Santos-Lemus v.
Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008); see Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859,
865 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Asylum generally is not available to victims of civil strife,
unless they are singled out on account of a protected ground.”) Contrary to Vega-
Aredo’s assertions, the Board upheld the IJ’s factual findings, and the record does
not compel the conclusion that Vega-Aredo established he was persecuted on
account of an anti-gang political opinion when he resisted the gang’s third
recruitment attempt.
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on
the Board’s finding that Vega-Arego did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at
the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Peruvian government.
See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 10-70814
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --