Denis Omar Sanchez-Vigil 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DENIS OMAR SANCHEZ-VIGIL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70657
Agency No. A099-666-441
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Denis Omar Sanchez-Vigil, 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
NOV 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70657 2
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
findings of fact, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992), and de novo
claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.
2000). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Sanchez-Vigil
failed to establish gang members targeted him on account of a protected ground.
See Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1280-81 (9th Cir. 1998) (criminal street gang
activity does not establish persecution on account of a protected ground).
Accordingly, Sanchez-Vigil’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Sanchez-Vigil failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured if
returned to El Salvador. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th
Cir. 2008). Sanchez-Vigil’s contention that the BIA applied the wrong standard to
his CAT claim is not supported by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --