Ever Vicente Arce 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EVER VICENTE ARCE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70892
Agency No. A098-264-237
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ever Vicente Arce, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70892
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo its legal
conclusions. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). We
deny the petition for review.
Arce contends that gang members, during two separate robbery attempts,
beat him due to his membership in a particular social group. Taking into account
all of Arce’s evidence, the record does not compel the conclusion that the gang
members targeted him on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v.
Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a
protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant's
persecution”). Accordingly, because Arce did not show a nexus to a protected
ground, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Ochoa v.
Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --