Francisco Rolando Arevalo- Chanax 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
KN/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO ROLANDO AREVALO-
CHANAX,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71697
Agency No. A098-428-729
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Rolando Arevalo-Chanax, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

KN/Research 07-71697 2
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“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
factual findings for substantial evidence. 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 lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s claim that he is a member of a
particular social group of young men in Guatemala who are persecuted for refusing
to join gangs because he failed to raise the issue in his brief to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioner’s
mistreatment by the gang did not occur on account of a protected ground. See
Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2002) (no compelling
evidence the applicant was an intended victim of the violence directed at his
father); Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1488-89 (9th Cir. 1997) (failed to establish
persecution on account of political opinion or political neutrality); see also
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (a protected ground

-- 2 of 3 --

KN/Research 07-71697 3
must be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant). Because
petitioner failed to demonstrate he was persecuted on account of a protected
ground, we deny the petition as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims.
See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioner failed to establish a likelihood of torture in Guatemala. See Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
Because we conclude the agency’s denial of petitioner’s claim on the merits
is supported, we need not address petitioner’s contention that the BIA erred in
failing to address the IJ’s independent adverse credibility determination.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --