Israel Cardona 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ISRAEL CARDONA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-75194
Agency No. A097-895-278
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.
Israel Cardona, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
NOV 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-75194 2
jurisdiction under 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 for
substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
We reject Cardona’s claim that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of
removal based on his anti-gang political opinion or membership in a particular
social group. See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 860-62 (9th Cir. 2009)
(concluding young Salvadoran men who are recruited by gangs and refuse to join
is not a social group, and refusal to join gangs is not a political opinion);
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act
requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum
applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, because Cardona failed to demonstrate he
was or will be persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as
to his asylum and withholding claims. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856
(9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Cardona failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if

-- 2 of 3 --

08-75194 3
returned to El Salvador. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th
Cir. 2008).
Cardona’s due process contention regarding the BIA’s issuance of a
streamlined decision is not supported by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --