Mario Diaz-Estrada, et al v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 10-71279 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAR 28 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIO ALBERTO DIAZ-ESTRADA and DILCIA ELIZABETH TOMASINOJIMENEZ, No. 10-71279 Agency Nos. A094-795-352 A094-795-348 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM * v. 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 Mario Alberto Diaz-Estrada and Dilcia Elizabeth TomasinoJimenez, husband and wife and natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals streamlined order affirming an * 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). immigration judge s (IJ) decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ s denial of asylum and withholding of removal because Diaz-Estrada 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). Moreover, being a victim of criminal gang activity is not a protected ground. 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. ) We decline to address petitioners unexhausted contention that gang members targeted DiazEstrada for persecution on account of his membership in a family social group. Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (declining to consider a claim that Board did not have first opportunity to consider). 2 10-71279 Because petitioners have not specifically and distinctly argued and raised the issue of CAT relief, they have waived that claim. Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 10-71279

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.