Lazaro Bartolome PORTILLO-VALLADARES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent, 359 F. App'x 687

MEMORANDUM Lazaro Bartolomé Portillo-Valladares, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 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 Portillo-Valladares’ claim that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal on the basis of his anti-gang political opinion or his membership in a particular social group, namely, young Salvadoran men who have fled gang recruitment. See Barrios v.

Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir.2009) (rejecting as a particular social group “young males in Guatemala who are targeted for gang recruitment but refuse because they disagree with the gang’s criminal activities”); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-47 (9th Cir.2008) (rejecting as a particular social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence”) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Portillo-Valadares failed to demonstrate the El Salvadoran government was unwilling or unable to control his alleged persecutors. See Castro-Perez v.

Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1070-72 (9th Cir.2005). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Por-tillo-Valladares’ asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Barrios, 581 F.3d at 854. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Portil-lo-Valladares did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the El Salvadoran 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.