Case Name: Rodolfo MENDOZA-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-02
Citations: 351 F. App'x 220
Docket Number: No. 07-73864
Parties: Rodolfo MENDOZA-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 351
Pages: 220–221

Head Matter:
Rodolfo MENDOZA-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73864.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
Filed Nov. 2, 2009.
Stephen Shaiken, Esquire, Law Office of Stephen Shaiken, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Allen W. Hausman, Esquire, OIL, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rodolfo Mendoza-Mendoza, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming an immigration judge's deci sion denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendoza-Mendoza's imputed political opinion and family as a social group claims because he did not exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).
We reject Mendoza-Mendoza's claim that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on his membership in a particular social group, namely, young El Salvadorean males opposed to gangs. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir.2009) (rejecting as a particular social group "young males in Guatemala who are targeted for gang recruitment but refuse because they disagree with the gang's criminal activities"); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.2008) (rejecting as a particular social group "young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence") (internal quotation omitted).
Accordingly, because Mendoza-Mendoza failed to demonstrate that he was persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Barrios, 581 F.3d at 855-56.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.