JOSE FRANCISCO ZAVALA and JOSEFINA RIVAS 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE FRANCISCO ZAVALA and
JOSEFINA RIVAS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70191
Agency Nos. A094-810-414
A094-810-415
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Francisco Zavala and Josefina Rivas, husband and wife and natives and
citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying
their application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the
FILED
FEB 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 10-70191
Convention Against Torture (CAT). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s timeliness determination as to
petitioners’ asylum application, filed 19 months late. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3);
Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007). We lack jurisdiction to
consider petitioners’ unexhausted contention that their untimely asylum application
is excused by extraordinary or changed circumstances. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of withholding of removal
because petitioners failed to show their alleged persecutors threatened them on
account of a protected ground. Petitioners’ 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.”)
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on
the Board’s finding that petitioners did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at

-- 2 of 3 --

3 10-70191
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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --