Manuel Arriola 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MANUEL ARRIOLA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73663
Agency No. A094-464-536
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Manuel Arriola, 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 withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
FILED
OCT 31 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 10-73663
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 Arriola’s contention that he is eligible for withholding of removal
based on his membership in a particular social group, namely, young Salvadoran
men who oppose gang membership. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738,
746-47 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting as a particular social group “young [men] in El
Salvador resisting gang violence”). Arriola’s arguments that Matter of S-E-G-, 24
I & N Dec. 579 (BIA 2008), was wrongly decided, and that ‘social visibility’ and
‘particularity’ are improper factors for determining a particular social group, are
unavailing. See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 860-62 (9th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, Arriola’s withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --