Case Name: Lino Andres ROMERO-CAMPOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-20
Citations: 411 F. App'x 76
Docket Number: No. 09-71364
Parties: Lino Andres ROMERO-CAMPOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 411
Pages: 76–77

Head Matter:
Lino Andres ROMERO-CAMPOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71364.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
Filed Jan. 20, 2011.
Lino Andres Romero-Campos, pro se.
Blanca Luz Martinez-Martinez, pro se.
Claudia Marcela Campos-Martinez, pro se.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Kristina Rencic Sracic, Trial, Kathryn Deangelis, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes (.his case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lino Andres Romero-Campos, Blanca Luz Martinez-Martinez, and Claudia Marcela Campos-Martinez, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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 determination 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.
We reject petitioners' claim that they are eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on their anti-gang political opinion or membership in a particular social group. See 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," and holding that general aversion to gangs is not a political opinion); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) ("[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent 'one central reason' for an asylum applicant's persecution"). Accordingly, because petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were or will be persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to the asylum and withholding claims. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT protection because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they will be tortured if they return to El Salvador. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747-48.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.