Walter Arango-Hernandez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
WALTER ARANGO-HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71590
Agency No. A098-569-214
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Walter Arango-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an
FILED
FEB 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Arango-Hernandez does not challenge the denial of asylum or protection1
under the Convention Against Torture.
2 10-71590
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal1
and denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of withholding of removal
because Arango-Hernandez failed to show his alleged persecutors threatened him
on account of a protected ground. His 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.
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 victims of civil strife,
unless they are singled out on account of a protected ground.”)
The Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Arango-Hernandez’s
motion to remand when he offered no evidence that he was targeted on account of
a protected ground and the Board concluded he was a victim of criminal activity.
See Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) (reviewing for

-- 2 of 3 --

3 10-71590
abuse of discretion, which occurs if Board decision is “arbitrary, irrational, or
contrary to law”).
Because the Board properly denied relief for lack of a nexus, we need not
address Arango-Hernandez’s contention that he suffered past persecution or has a
well-founded fear of future persecution by forces the Guatemalan government is
unable or unwilling to control.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --