Case Name: Jose ORELLANA-LEMUS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-21
Citations: 362 F. App'x 801
Docket Number: No. 07-72970
Parties: Jose ORELLANA-LEMUS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 801–802

Head Matter:
Jose ORELLANA-LEMUS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72970.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 21, 2010.
Larry F. Chin, Esquire, Julian & Chin, LLP, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Jesse Lloyd Busen, Trial, Oil, Aviva Poc-zter, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Orellana-Lemus, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008), and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of Orellana-Lemus' claims because he did not establish that his fear of persecution is on account of a protected ground. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 944-46 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that neither current nor former gang members constitute a particular social group); Molinar-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.