
    Elmer Rodofo ALVARES RIVAS, aka Elmer Rodolfo Alvarez-Rivas, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72373.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 21, 2010.
    Jenny Tsai, Green & Tsai, Attorneys at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Keith Ian McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, 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: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Elmer Rodolfo Alvares Rivas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal.

We reject Alvares Rivas’s claim that he is eligible for asylum based on his membership in a particular social group, namely public transportation drivers who resist gang extortion. 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 social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence”). We also reject Alvares Rivas’s asylum claim based on his anti-gang extortion political opinion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Barrios, 581 F.3d at 854-56. Because Alvares Rivas 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. Id. at 856.

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