MARTA LILIAN FLORES-CISNEROS and WILLIAM DANIEL CISNEROS- FLORES 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARTA LILIAN FLORES-CISNEROS
and WILLIAM DANIEL CISNEROS-
FLORES,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73015
Agency Nos. A098-993-519
A098-993-520
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Marta Lilian Flores-Cisneros and her son William Daniel
Cisneros-Flores, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an immigration
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 09-73015
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 deny the petition for review.
Petitioners do not challenge the Board’s determination that no exceptions
applied to excuse petitioners’ untimely asylum application. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (requiring petitioner to apply for asylum within one year of arrival
in United States unless prevented by extraordinary circumstances or changed
circumstances materially affecting eligibility for relief); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder,
612 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Petitioners have therefore
waived any challenge to the denial of their asylum application. Martinez-Serrano
v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s alternative denial of asylum on
the merits, as well as the denial of 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 gang violence is not on account
of the protected ground of either membership in a particular social group or
political opinion. Ramos Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009);
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008); see Ochave v.
INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Asylum generally is not available to

-- 2 of 3 --

3 09-73015
victims of civil strife, unless they are singled out on account of a protected
ground.”)
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 --