Ismael Recinos Lopez, a.k.a. Ismael Recinos, a.k.a. Ismael 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 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ISMAEL RECINOS LOPEZ, a.k.a. Ismael
Recinos, a.k.a. Ismael Lopez,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74438
Agency No. A095-136-409
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ismael Recinos Lopez, 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,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
FILED
SEP 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-74438 2
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 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 the petition for review.
We reject petitioner’s claim that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of
removal based upon his membership in a particular social group. See Barrios v.
Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d
738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th
Cir. 2009) (“The Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one
central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). To the extent petitioner
contends he is a member of particular social group distinct from that considered
and rejected by the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider the contention because he
did not exhaust it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, because petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was or will be
persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to his asylum
and withholding of removal claims. See Barrios, 581 F.3d at 856.

-- 2 of 3 --

08-74438 3
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioner failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if
returned to El Salvador. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747-48.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --