NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BLANCA ESTELA BLANCO

- TESPAN; et al. , Petitioners,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 71502 Agency Nos. A209

- 280

- 840

A209

- 280

- 839

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 4, 2020 * *
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Blanca Estela Blanco

- Tespan and her minor son , native s and citizen s of El
Salvador , petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application s for asylum , w ithholding of removal , and relief under the Convention

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Against Torture (“CAT”)

. 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 interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 37 1 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in finding that the proposed social group of “Salvadoran males who resisted M18 gang recruitment multiple times” was not cognizable

. See Reyes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 20 16) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the
soci ety in question’” (quoting Matter of M

- E

- V

- G

- , 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)) ) ; see also Santos

-

Lemus v. Mukasey , 542 F.3d 738, 744

- 46 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding young men who resist gang violence in El Salvador is not a particular social group), abrog ated in part by Henriquez

- Rivas v. Holder , 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish they were or would be persecuted in El Salvador on account of a3

protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still
show that “ persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such

group ” ) ; Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of remov al claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador

. S ee Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) ; see also Wakkary v. Holder , 558 F.3d 1049, 1067

- 68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture)

. P etitioners’ contention that the agency failed to consider evidence is unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.