Juan Carlos Alcor-Laroj 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JUAN CARLOS ALCOR-LAROJ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71262
Agency No. A097-834-724
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Juan Carlos Alcor-Laroj, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
OCT 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-71262 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including
due process claims, see Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1007 (9th Cir.
2003), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the
governing statutes and regulations, see Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535
(9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence factual findings. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for
review.
Alcor-Laroj contends he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal
based on his membership in a particular social group, namely, young males who
have been previously targeted by Guatemalan gangs, and based on his familial ties.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the robbery by a suspected
gang member was criminal in nature and not on account of a protected ground. See
Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004) (random criminal acts
bore no nexus to a protected ground); see also Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d
738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting as a particular social group “young men in
El Salvador resisting gang violence”). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s finding that Alcor-Laroj failed to establish that gang members killed his
cousin on account of a protected ground and sought to harm him on account of his
familial relationship with his cousin. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,

-- 2 of 3 --

09-71262 3
483-84 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Alcor-Laroj’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims.
Alcor-Laroj has not raised any challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT
relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Because Alcor-Laroj conceded service of his Notice to Appear, admitted the
factual allegations therein, and conceded removability, we reject his due process
contention. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2007) (no due
process violation where no prejudice shown).
Finally, Alcor-Laroj’s claim that the agency did not fully consider evidence
of country conditions in Guatemala fails because he has not overcome the
presumption that it reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592,
603 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --