Francisco Morales-Barela 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FRANCISCO MORALES-BARELA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70043
Agency No. A077-782-693
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Morales-Barela, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ’s
findings of fact for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015
(9th Cir. 2003), and questions of law, including claims of due process violations,
de novo, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Morales-
Barela failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of a protected ground. The agency correctly determined
that Mara Salvatrucha is not a recognized social group and that Morales-Barela’s
membership in a gang is not a protected ground. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511
F.3d 940, 943-45 (9th Cir. 2007). Furthermore, Morales-Barela did not show he
was targeted by police for his disagreement with anti-gang laws rather than for his
gang activity. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008).
Lastly, Morales-Barela’s argument that his unwillingness to follow gang orders
constitutes political opinion is foreclosed by our decision in Santos-Lemus. See id.
at 746-47 (holding that opposition to a gang’s criminal activity is not a protected
political opinion). Accordingly, his claims for asylum and withholding of removal
fail.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Morales-
Barela is not entitled to CAT relief because he failed to demonstrate that it is more
likely than not that he will be tortured upon return to Honduras. See Malhi v. INS,
336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003).
Morales-Barela’s due process contention that the record is incomplete fails
because he has not shown prejudice. See Colemenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971
(9th Cir. 2000). We reject Morales-Barela’s contention that the IJ demonstrated
bias by mentioning appellate review. See id. We also reject his contention that the
BIA did not consider attorney Pott’s declaration regarding the IJ’s conduct during
the videotape because it is not supported by the record. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --