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

Jorgen Ramirez Alvarez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Jorgen Ramirez Alvarez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided June 27, 2011 · Canby, O'Scannlain, Fisher
440 F. App'x 564

Jorgen Ramirez Alvarez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jorgen Manuel Ramirez Alvarez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that no exceptions applied to excuse Alvarez’s untimely asylum application, filed approximately ten years late. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (requiring petitioner to apply for asylum within one year of arrival in United States unless prevented by extraordinary circumstances or changed circumstances materially affecting eligibility for relief); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of withholding of removal because Alvarez 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); 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.”)

Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on the Board’s finding that Alvarez did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Honduran government. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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