U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2011

Norma Gonzalez-Ramirez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Norma Gonzalez-Ramirez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided March 28, 2011
Norma Gonzalez-Ramirez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 28 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NORMA ELIZABETH GONZALEZ- No. 09-73779 RAMIREZ, aka Rosario Moreno-Garcia, Agency No. A200-049-326 Petitioner, 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.

Norma Elizabeth Gonzalez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal because Gonzalez-Ramirez failed to show her alleged persecutors threatened her on account of a protected ground. Her fear of future persecution based on having brothers who are gang members is not on account of the protected ground of membership in a particular social group. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 944-46 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that neither current nor former gang members constitute a particular social group). Any fear of future persecution based on Gonzalez-Ramirez’s resistance to attempted gang recruitment 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).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 Petitioner did not challenge the denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 2 09-73779

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.