### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

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 B o ar d of I m mi gr atio n 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 U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 1 9, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-60251 Document: 00512089719 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2012No. 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

nov o a n d 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 b e substantially reasonable. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). We will affi r m 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 th a t the applican t ’ 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

a t 9 0 6

. Th e BIA did not err in determining that the social group proposed b y Villatoro was not a particular social group for purposes of the Immigration and N a t i o n ality 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. Con s equently, the petition for review is DENIED.

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