JOSE EDUARDO MORALES-LOPEZ, AKA Jose Eduardo Morales 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 EDUARDO MORALES-LOPEZ,
AKA Jose Eduardo Morales,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74465
Agency No. A029-275-667
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010 **
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Jose Eduardo Morales-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction
FILED
NOV 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, see, e.g., Cerezo v.
Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference
is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review factual
findings for substantial evidence. See, e.g., Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
We reject Morales’s claim that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of
removal based on his membership in a particular social group, namely, people who
have lived in the United States, are perceived as wealthy, and are parents of
children who are United States citizens. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d
1148, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010); Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir.
2005); In re A-M-E- & J-G-U-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 69, 76 (BIA 2007). Accordingly,
we deny Morales’s petition as to his asylum and withholding-of-removal claims.
See, e.g., Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The Real
ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an
asylum applicant’s persecution.”).
We also deny Morales’s petition as to his unsupported claim for protection
under the Convention Against Torture. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d
738, 747–48 (9th Cir. 2008).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --