Edwin Adonay Mendoza 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EDWIN ADONAY MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71710
Agency No. A094-452-765
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 6, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Edwin Adonay Mendoza, 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 and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
DEC 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-71710 2
for substantial evidence factual findings. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738,
742 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Mendoza contends he suffered harm from gang members during several
incidents on account of his imputed political opinion. Substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s finding that the robberies were criminal in nature or to recruit
him, and thus that Mendoza failed to establish the required nexus to 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); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542
F.3d at 745-46 (rejecting petitioner’s contention that “the gang held any sort of
belief system that they perceived [petitioner] to oppose”); Parussimova v.
Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a
protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s
persecution”). Accordingly, Mendoza’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --