Case Name: Jose Rolando AGUILAR-CANAS; Evelyn Elizabeth Montoya-Palacios, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-11
Citations: 334 F. App'x 35
Docket Number: No. 08-2205
Parties: Jose Rolando AGUILAR-CANAS; Evelyn Elizabeth Montoya-Palacios, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 334
Pages: 35–35

Head Matter:
Jose Rolando AGUILAR-CANAS; Evelyn Elizabeth Montoya-Palacios, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-2205.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 8, 2009.
Filed: Sept. 11, 2009.
Jason M. Finch, Dwyer & Smith, Omaha, NE, for Petitioners.
Sada Manickam, Karen Yolanda Drum-mond, Richard M. Evans, Nairi Mary Si-monian, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
. Eric H. Holder, Jr. has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jose Rolando Aguilar-Canas and Evelyn Elizabeth Montoya-Palacios (petitioners), natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which summarily affirmed the decision of an immigration judge (IJ), denying their request for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioners challenge the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief. Upon careful review, see Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 982-83 (8th Cir.2005) (stating the deferential standard of review for denial of withholding of removal); Chege v. Holder, 309 Fed.Appx. 78, 79 n. 2 (8th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (holding the petitioner's failure to address her Convention Against Torture claim in her brief amounted to waiver of such claim), we deny the petition.
For the reasons explained by the IJ, petitioners failed to show that the gang violence they suffered in El Salvador was attributable either to a political opinion that they held or to their membership in a particular social group; thus, they similarly failed to show it was more likely than not that they would be persecuted on account of any such protected ground if returned to El Salvador. See Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 624, 628 (8th Cir.2008) (defining membership in particular social group); Mohamed v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 999, 1003 (8th Cir.2005) (explaining that harm arising from general conditions such as anarchy, civil war, or mob violence will not ordinarily support claim of persecution).
We deny the petition.