
    Norma Elizabeth GONZALEZ-RAMIREZ, aka Rosario Moreno-Garcia, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73779.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 28, 2011.
    John D. Friedman, Friedman & Ikon, Tarzana, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Eric Warren Marsteller, Esquire, Trial, Oil, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Trial, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: FARRIS, LEAVY 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).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Norma Elizabeth Gonzalez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal because Gonzalez-Ramirez failed to show her alleged persecutors threatened her on account of a protected ground. Her fear of future persecution based on having brothers who are gang members is not on account of the protected ground of membership in a particular social group. 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). Any fear of future persecution based on Gonzalez-Ramirez’s resistance to attempted gang recruitment is not on account of the protected ground of either membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Ramos Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (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.
     
      
      . Petitioner did not challenge the denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
     