Otoniel Eliseo Ruiz Cabrera 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).
MVD/Inventory
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OTONIEL ELISEO RUIZ CABRERA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74034
Agency No. A095-682-945
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Otoniel Eliseo Ruiz Cabrera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro
se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
FILED
DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 MVD/Inventory 08-74034
of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d
646, 648 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (exercising jurisdiction over consideration of
one-year bar where facts were undisputed). We review factual findings for
substantial evidence, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008),
and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that no exceptions
applied to excuse Ruiz Cabrera’s untimely asylum application, filed almost eight
years late. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (requiring petitioner to apply for asylum
within one year of arrival in United States unless prevented by extraordinary
circumstances or changed circumstances materially affecting eligibility for relief);
Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 2009 WL 4256449 at *2 (9th Cir. Dec. 1, 2009) (holding
no extraordinary circumstances excused application filed seven months late).
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of relief on the merits
of Ruiz Cabrera’s claim for asylum and withholding of removal, because Ruiz
Cabrera 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. See Ramos Barrios v.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 MVD/Inventory 08-74034
Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009); Santos-Lemus at 745-46; 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 Ruiz Cabrera failed to submit meaningful argument
establishing a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or
acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d
940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth requirements for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --