Giovanni Alexander PINEDA; Mirna Garcia Pineda, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent, 360 F. App'x 810

MEMORANDUM Giovanni Alexander Pineda and Mirna Garcia Pineda, husband and wife and natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v.

Mulcasey, 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 the Pinedas’ claim that they are eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on Giovanni Pineda’s membership in a particular social group, namely, young El Salvadorean males retaliated against for refusing to join gangs, or on account of his anti-gang political opinion. 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); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 855-56 (9th Cir.2009) (refusal to join a gang does not amount to a political opinion).

Accordingly, because the Pinedas failed to demonstrate that they were persecuted or fear persecution on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to the asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Barrios, 581 F.3d at 856. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief based on its finding that the Pinedas did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the El Salvadoran government. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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