JOSE ORLANDO MELENDEZ-CELIS, AKA Agustin Venegas-Ramos; 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).
MVD/Inventory
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ORLANDO MELENDEZ-CELIS,
AKA Agustin Venegas-Ramos; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74626
Agency Nos. A098-924-737
A098-924-736
A098-924-739
A098-924-738
A098-924-740
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Jose Orlando Melendez-Celis, Yessenia Beatriz Guardado-de
Melendez, husband and wife, and their children Axell Josue Melendez-Guardado,
Marvin Orlando Melendez-Guardado and Gabriela Beatriz Melendez-Guardado,
FILED
DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 MVD/Inventory 08-74626
natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a Board of Immigration
Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Santos-Lemus v.
Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding
of removal because petitioners failed to show their alleged persecutors threatened
them on account of a protected ground. Their 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. See Ramos Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009);
Santos-Lemus at 745-46; 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.”). Petitioners have failed to exhaust their
claim that the lead petitioner’s status of being an El Salvadoran business owner
who refuses to pay extortion money makes him a member of a protected social
group or qualifies as a political opinion. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d
1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (declining to consider a claim that Board did not have

-- 2 of 3 --

3 MVD/Inventory 08-74626
first opportunity to consider). Petitioners have waived any claim of membership in
a protected social group comprised of having an extended family in El Salvador.
See Maharaj v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 961, 967 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on
the Board’s finding that petitioners did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at
the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the El Salvadoran
government. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --