Fausto Tellez-Garcia 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FAUSTO TELLEZ-GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70741
Agency No. A094-812-530
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.
Fausto Tellez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
FILED
MAR 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70741 2
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. Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854
(9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Tellez-Garcia’s
withholding of removal claim because Tellez-Garcia failed to establish the harm he
suffered, or fears, from criminal gangs in Mexico is on account of his membership
in a particular social group. See id. at 856 (evidence supported conclusion that
gang victimized the petitioner for economic and personal reasons rather than on
account of a protected ground); 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.”); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555
F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground
represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”).
Accordingly, Tellez-Garcia’s withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --