Lino Andres Romero-Campos; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LINO ANDRES ROMERO-CAMPOS; et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71364
Agency Nos. A098-591-670
A098-591-671
A098-591-672
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
San Francisco, California
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Lino Andres Romero-Campos, Blanca Luz Martinez-Martinez, and Claudia
Marcela Campos-Martinez, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an
FILED
JAN 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

immigration judge's decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
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 petitioners’ claim that they are eligible for asylum and
withholding of removal based on their anti-gang political opinion or membership
in a particular social group. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46
(9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting as a particular social group “young men in El Salvador
resisting gang violence,” and holding that general aversion to 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 petitioners failed to
demonstrate that they were or will be persecuted on account of a protected ground,
we deny the petition as to the asylum and withholding claims. See Barrios v.
Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT protection
because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they will be tortured
if they return to El Salvador. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747-48.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --