Jose Atilio Recenos v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ATILIO RECENOS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71470
Agency No. A029-318-183
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Atilio Recenos, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from
the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
FILED
JUL 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA found that Recenos failed to establish the harm he experienced and
fears in El Salvador was on account of a protected ground. Recenos contends that
he suffered harm on account of his particular social group comprised of his family.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Recenos failed to establish
that he or his family members were targeted by gang members because of their
family membership. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.
2009) (under the REAL ID Act, a protected ground must be “one central reason”
for an applicant’s persecution); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.
2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated
by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected
ground.”). Thus, Recenos’s withholding of removal claim fails.
In light of our conclusion, we need not reach Recenos’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-71470 2

-- 2 of 2 --