Cesar Obdulio Monterroso- Pacheco 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CESAR OBDULIO MONTERROSO-
PACHECO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73325
Agency No. A098-795-030
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Cesar Obdulio Monterroso-Pacheco, 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 of removal and protection under the
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 09-73325
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding
of removal because petitioner failed to show his alleged persecutors threatened him
on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83
(1992) (holding that forced recruitment alone is not enough to show persecution on
account of political opinion). 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. 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 petitioner did not establish 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --