Jazmine Hernandez Marquez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JAZMINE HERNANDEZ MARQUEZ et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-75129
Agency Nos. A098-892-711
A098-892-712
A098-892-713
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Jazmine Hernandez-Marquez and her siblings, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed
FILED
OCT 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-75129 2
by 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 factual findings for
substantial evidence. 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 membership in a particular social group,
namely, young people targeted for recruitment or otherwise threatened by gangs in
El Salvador. 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”); Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 861-62 (9th Cir. 2009)
(rejecting as a particular social group “young Honduran men who have been
recruited by [a gang], but who refuse to join”); see Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555
F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The Real ID Act requires that a protected
ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider whether petitioners were persecuted because
their parents live in the United States or because of their gender, because these

-- 2 of 3 --

08-75129 3
claims were not exhausted. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004).
Accordingly, because petitioners failed to demonstrate they were persecuted
on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to their asylum and
withholding of removal claims. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.
2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --