Denis Alexander AMAYA-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent, 359 F. App'x 791

MEMORANDUM Denis Alexander Amaya-Flores, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture. 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 Amaya-Flores’s claim that he is eligible for asylum and -withholding of removal based on his membership in a particular social group, namely, young El Salvadoran males who refuse to join gangs. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.2008) (rejecting as a particular social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence”) (internal quotation omitted); Ramos-Lopez v.

Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 860-62 (9th Cir.2009) (rejecting as a particular social group “young Honduran men who have been recruited by [a gang], but who refuse to join”). Accordingly, because Amaya-Flores failed to demonstrate that he was persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Amaya-Flores failed to demonstrate a clear probability he will be tortured by the government or with the government’s acquiescence if returned to El Salvador. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.