Jose Barillas v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-72528 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 22 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LUCIO BARILLAS, aka Jose Lucio Barillas Portillo, No. 09-72528 Agency No. A072-438-417 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2010 ** San Francisco, California Before: O SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Jose Lucio Barillas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals which dismissed his appeal from the immigration judge s denial of his applications for asylum, * 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). withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture, and cancellation of removal. We reject Lucio Barillas claim that he is eligible for asylum based on his membership in a particular social group, namely persons who suffer persecution due to the El Salvador government s inability to control gangs. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting as a social group young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence ). We also reject Lucio Barillas asylum political opinion claim based on his resistance to the gangs. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84 (1992); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009). Because Lucio Barillas failed to demonstrate that he was persecuted on account of a protected ground, we uphold the agency s denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims. Id. at 856. Lucio Barillas also claims that the IJ failed to provide him with a full and fair hearing of his claims by denying him the right to continue his testimony and present his case. The record, however, does not support petitioner s claim. See Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-72528
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
