The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 19, 2010.
John E. Ricci, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Jesse Lloyd Busen, Trial, Aviva Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A098-263-612.
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Evelyn Beatriz Mejia-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA's determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
We reject petitioner's claim that she is eligible for asylum or withholding of removal based upon an anti-gang political opinion or her membership in a particular social group, namely, parties who refuse to join or be coerced by criminal gangs. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting as a particular social group "young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence," and holding that general aversion to gangs is not a political opinion"); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) ("[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent `one central reason' for an asylum applicant's persecution"). Accordingly, because petitioner failed to demonstrate she was or will be persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009).
In her opening brief, petitioner failed to challenge the BIA's denial of her gender or family social group claims, as well as her claim for CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued are deemed waived).