Bayardo Edwinsin Pavon Tejada 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).
KAD/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BAYARDO EDWINSIN PAVON
TEJADA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70452
Agency No. A095-292-070
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Bayardo Edwinsin Pavon Tejada, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
FILED
FEB 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

KAD/Research 08-70452 2
withholding of 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, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,
542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
We reject Tejada’s claim that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of
removal on account of his anti-gang political opinion, or based on his membership
in a particular social group. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 855-56 (9th Cir.
2009); Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 745-46. Accordingly, because Tejada failed to
show he was persecuted or fears persecution on account of a protected ground, we
deny the petition as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Barrios,
581 F.3d at 856.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Tejada did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the
consent or acquiescence of the Honduran government. See Arteaga v. Mukasey,
511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).

-- 2 of 3 --

KAD/Research 08-70452 3
We lack jurisdiction to consider Tejada’s due process claim because he
failed to exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78
(9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --