Jose Luis Rosales Cartagena v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-73597 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LUIS ROSALES CARTAGENA, Petitioner, No. 09-73597 Agency No. A070-460-868 v. MEMORANDUM * 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 Luis Rosales Cartegena, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions 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 and withholding of removal. * 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). We reject Rosales Cartegena s claim that he is eligible for asylum based on his membership in a particular social group, namely persons who suffer persecution due to gang activity, arising from his fear of gangs if he refuses to be recruited into gangs; and 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 Rosales Cartegena s political opinion claim based on his resistance to the gangs. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84 (1992) (resisting forced recruitment does not necessarily constitute persecution on account of political opinion); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009) (resistance to gang recruitment does not constitute political opinion). Because Rosales Cartegena failed to demonstrate that he was persecuted on account of a protected ground, we uphold the agency s denial of his withholding of removal claim. Id. at 856. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-73597
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.
