IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-60251

Summary Calendar

PEDRO VILLATORO, also known as Pedro Villatoro-Moreno,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A089 938 565

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pedro Villatoro, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions this court for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal

of the Immigration’s Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for withholding of

removal. He contends that the IJ and BIA erred in denying his application for

withholding of removal because he established past persecution and a likelihood

of future persecution on account of his membership in a particular social group,

defined as “individuals targeted by gangs in El Salvador because of age and who

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 19, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-60251 Document: 00512089719 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2012
No. 12-60251

cannot turn to the Government to protect them and who fear future harm since

residing in the United States.” The BIA determined that the group set forth by

Villatoro lacked particularity and social visibility.

We review the BIA’s decision and will consider the IJ’s underlying decision

only if it influenced the determination of the BIA. Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft,

303 F.3d 341, 348 (5th Cir. 2002). The BIA’s legal conclusions are reviewed de

novo and its findings of fact, such as an alien’s eligibility for withholding of

removal, are reviewed for substantial evidence. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899,

903, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). The substantial evidence test requires that the decision

be based on the evidence presented and that the decision be substantially

reasonable. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). We will

affirm the BIA’s determination “unless the evidence compels a contrary

conclusion.” Id.

To qualify for withholding of removal, the alien “must demonstrate a ‘clear

probability’ of persecution upon return.” Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th

Cir. 2004). “A clear probability means that it is more likely than not that the

applicant’s life or freedom would be threatened by persecution on account of

either his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or

political opinion.” Id.

The BIA’s determination that Villatoro failed to establish his eligibility for

withholding of removal is supported by substantial evidence. See Efe, 293 F.3d

at 906. The BIA did not err in determining that the social group proposed by

Villatoro was not a particular social group for purposes of the Immigration and

Nationality Act because it did not possess the requisite social visibility or

particularity. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518-20 (5th Cir.

2012). Villatoro has therefore failed to show that the record compels a finding

that the BIA erred in its conclusion. Consequently, the petition for review is

DENIED.

2

 Case: 12-60251 Document: 00512089719 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2012