Yeni Menjivar-Hercules, et al v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 10-70344 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 28 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YENI MENJIVAR-HERCULES and URIEL MENJIVAR-HERCULES, No. 10-70344 Agency Nos. A098-119-377 A098-119-378 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 8, 2011 ** Before: FARRIS, LEAVY and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Petitioners Yeni Menjivar-Hercules and her brother Uriel MenjivarHercules, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge s * 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). decision denying their application for withholding of removal.1 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 petitioners failed to show they were subject to conduct rising to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding unfulfilled threats and an incident of physical violence did not establish past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the Board s denial of withholding of removal because petitioners failed to show that gang members threatened them on account of a protected ground. Their 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. ) Likewise, 1 Petitioners conceded their asylum application was untimely and did not request relief under the Convention Against Torture. 2 10-70344 perceived wealth is not a protected ground. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 10-70344

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.