Carla Elizabeth Lopez- Lenario, aka Lubia Karina Ibanez- Colindres; 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).
jlf/Inventory
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLA ELIZABETH LOPEZ-
LENARIO, aka Lubia Karina Ibanez-
Colindres; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72680
Agency Nos. A098-920-100
A098-920-105
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Carla Elizabeth Lopez-Lenario and her brother Roberto Carlos Lopez-
Lenario, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the decision of
FILED
JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

jlf/Inventory 08-72680 2
the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing their appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of their application for asylum.
Petitioners contend that the IJ violated their due process rights by failing to
consider properly the evidence of country conditions, and the BIA and IJ erred in
finding that petitioners did not belong to a particular social group that merited
asylum relief. Our review of the record indicates that the IJ did consider the State
Department country report and other reports in the record, and we reject petitioners
claim that there was a due process violation. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430
(9th Cir. 1995). In addition, the record does not compel reversal of the IJ’s and
BIA’s conclusion that petitioners failed to establish that they were persecuted by
gangs in El Salvador, or that they were members of a particular social group so as
to merit asylum relief. See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 855 F.3d 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). To the extent that
petitioners raise a claim of a new particular social group (young adults who have
an uncle who was kidnapped and who fear being targeted by gangs) for the first
time on appeal, petitioners have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and
we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th

-- 2 of 3 --

jlf/Inventory 08-72680 3
Cir. 2004). Accordingly, petitioners’ claims fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; and DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --