Jose Vidal Aguilar-Zavala 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 VIDAL AGUILAR-ZAVALA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72983
Agency No. A099-465-770
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Vidal Aguilar-Zavala, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72983 2
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 factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
We reject Aguilar-Zavala’s claim that he is eligible for asylum and
withholding of removal based on his anti-gang political opinion. See
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that “general
aversion to gangs does not constitute a political opinion for asylum purposes”).
Further, we lack jurisdiction to consider Aguilar-Zavala’s asylum claim based on
his social group as a “family comprised of law abiding members who refuse to join
gangs or be coerced by gang culture,” because he did not exhaust it before the
agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, because Aguilar-Zavala failed to demonstrate that he was persecuted
or fears future persecution on account of a protected ground, we deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims.
See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --