#### Yeny Aracely DURON-ARITA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-70986.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 21, 2011.

*214William B. Bennett, Reyna Tanner, Manulkin Glaser & Bennett, Fountain Valley, CA, for Petitioner.

Nancy Ellen Friedman, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Yeny Aracely Duron-Arita, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration . Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 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,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review for substantial evidence factual findings. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Duron-Arita failed to establish gang members targeted her in Honduras on account of a political opinion or membership in a particular social group. *See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.2008); *see also Soriano v. Holder,*569 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir.2009) (rejecting “government informants” as a particular social group). We reject Duron-Arita’s claim that she is eligi*215ble for asylum and withholding of removal as a member of a particular social group based on her perceived wealth or family ties to United States citizens. *See Li v. INS,*92 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir.1996); *Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder,*600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir.2010). Lastly, we reject Du-ron-Arita’s contention the agency applied the wrong legal standard to its nexus determination. *See Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir.1995) (where the BIA conducts a de novo review, any error committed by the IJ is cured by the BIA’s application of the correct standard). Accordingly, Duron-Arita’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Duron-Arita’s CAT claim because she failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to Honduras. *See Santos-Le-mus,*542 F.3d at 747-48.

Finally, we reject Duron-Arita’s contentions that the agency violated due process because the IJ was biased and because of alleged problems with transcription and interpretation. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail in due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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