Johnny Gonzales, aka Johnny Gonzalez v. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General

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. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the***
District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNNY GONZALES, aka Johnny
Gonzalez,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70484
Agency No. A072-531-638
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 15, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District***
Judge.
Petitioner Johnny Gonzales petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ ("BIA") denial of relief from removal. Reviewing for substantial
FILED
APR 18 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
evidence, Zhiqiang Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2011), we deny
the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Petitioner failed to
show that he suffered past persecution on account of a protected ground under 8
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). The record does not compel the conclusion that Petitioner
suffered harm rising to the level of persecution on account of his religion during
the one incident in which Petitioner hid under the bed. Even assuming that
Petitioner fell within a purported social group of "sexually exploited, abandoned
Guatemalan children," see generally Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738,
745–46 (9th Cir. 2008), the record does not compel the conclusion that his
attackers attacked him because of his membership in that group.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Petitioner failed to
show that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a
protected ground under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). We have previously rejected, as
bearing no nexus to a protected ground, a petitioner’s argument that "he was afraid
of gang violence because he had tattoos that gang members might mistake as a sign
of membership in a rival gang." Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.
2010).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
3. Because Petitioner has shown neither past persecution nor fear of future
persecution, his asylum claim fails. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b).
4. "Because [Petitioner’s] asylum claim fails, [he] necessarily cannot satisfy
the more stringent standard of proof required to demonstrate eligibility for
withholding of removal." Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 2008).
5. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner failed
to establish his eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Petition DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --