Maria Cornejo Salinas v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

08-71567Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJun 4, 2010

Full text

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIA CORNEJO SALINAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71567
Agency No. A098-591-941
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.
Petitioner Maria Cornejo Salinas, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings
for substantial evidence, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.
2008), and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding
of removal because Salinas failed to show her alleged persecutors threatened her
on account of a protected ground. Her fear of future persecution based on an actual
or imputed anti-gang opinion is not on account of the protected ground of either
membership in a particular social group or political opinion. See Ramos Barrios v.
Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009); Santos-Lemus at 745-46; 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.”)
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on
the Board’s finding that Salinas did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the
instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the El Salvadoran
government. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.