Valentin Antonio Ramirez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VALENTIN ANTONIO RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71731
Agency No. A094-320-707
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Valentin Antonio Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-71731 2
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed 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 for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
We reject Ramirez’s claim that he is eligible for withholding of removal
based on his membership in a particular social group, namely, victims of organized
crime who are unable to avail themselves of the protection of local law
enforcement. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008)
(rejecting as a social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence.”).
Accordingly, because Ramirez failed to demonstrate that his fear of persecution is
on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to his withholding of
removal claim. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009); see also
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act
requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum
applicant’s persecution”).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-71731 3
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Ramirez failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured with
the acquiescence of the government if he returns to El Salvador. See
Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 748.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez’s collateral attack on his
underlying state convictions based on his prior attorney’s failure to advise him of
the immigration consequences of these convictions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --