Ambrocio Amilcar CIFUENTES-PUAC, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent, 375 F. App'x 793

MEMORANDUM Ambrocio Amilcar Cifuentes-Puac, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his 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. Muka-sey, 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 Cifuentes-Puac’s claim that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on his anti-gang political opinion or his membership in a particular social group of people who refuse to join gangs. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir.2009); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-47 (9th Cir.2008).

Cifuentes-Puac’s claim that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on his membership in a particular social group consisting of his family also fails. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir.2002) (no compelling evidence the applicant was persecuted on account of his family membership). Because Cifuentes-Puac failed to demonstrate he was persecuted or fears persecution on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Barrios, 581 F.3d at 856.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Cifuentes-Puac failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured in Guatemala. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009). Lastly, contrary to Cifuentes-Puac’s contentions, the BIA did not conduct improper analysis when making its political opinion and CAT findings. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d) (3 )(i)—(ii). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.