Ricardo Montesinos-Bonilla; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RICARDO MONTESINOS-BONILLA;
et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73868
Agency Nos. A070-153-956
A200-022-675
A200-022-676
A200-022-677
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Montesinos-Bonilla and his family, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
JUL 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73868 2
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 the petition for review.
We reject petitioners’ claim they are eligible for asylum and withholding of
removal based on their membership in a particular social group. See
Velasco-Cervantes v. Holder, 593 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting as a
particular social group “former material witnesses for the United States
government”); see also Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2009)
(rejecting a proposed particular social group of “government informants”).
Accordingly, because petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were or will be
persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to their
asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Soriano, 569 F.3d at 1166-67.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --