Elmer Heriberto Granados 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ELMER HERIBERTO GRANADOS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71348
Agency No. A094-305-209
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Elmer Heriberto Granados, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals 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
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 09-71348
(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding
of removal because Granados failed to show his alleged persecutors threatened him
on account of a protected ground. His fear of future persecution based on an actual
or imputed anti-gang or anti-crime opinion is not on account of the protected
ground of either membership in a particular social group or political opinion.
Ramos Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009); Santos-Lemus v.
Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008); see Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859,
865 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Asylum generally is not available to victims of civil strife,
unless they are singled out on account of a protected ground.”) Because the Board
denied relief due to a lack of nexus to a protected ground, we need not address
Granados’s contention that he cannot internally relocate.
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on
the Board’s finding that, despite his credible testimony Granados did not establish
a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence
of the El Salvadoran government. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49
(9th Cir. 2007).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 09-71348
Granados’ due process challenge based on a streamlined affirmance by the
Board is misplaced, because the Board did not streamline its decision.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --