Rigoberto Ramos-Lopez 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jlf/Inventory
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RIGOBERTO RAMOS-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72603
Agency No. A098-596-266
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009 **
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, AND TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Rigoberto Ramos-Lopez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming the immigration
judge's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

jlf/Inventory 08-72603 2
protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Santos-Lemus v.
Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel reversal of the IJ's conclusion that petitioner
failed to establish that the harm he suffered at the hands of gang members in El
Salvador was on account of a protected ground. See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563
F.3d 855, 858-62 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that resistance to gang activity is not
a particular social group for the purpose of establishing nexus to a protected
ground); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal
retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). Accordingly,
petitioner's asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims fail.
Contrary to petitioner's allegation, the BIA did not issue a streamlined
decision, and the BIA's decision did not constitute a due process violation. See
Falcon-Cariche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --