
    Evelyn Melani Cornejo RODRIGUEZ, aka Melani Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70153.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 10, 2011.
    
      Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew B. Insenga, Trial, Theo Nickerson, Esquire, OIL, Yamileth G. Handuber, Trial, William Charles Peachey, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. 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

Evelyn Melani Cornejo Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of petitioner’s application for withholding of removal.

Where the BIA summarily affirms the Id’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency decision. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir.2006).

Petitioner contends that she was entitled to withholding relief based on her membership in a social group consisting of a family who were victimized by the gangs. We need not resolve this issue because we conclude that the IJ correctly determined that petitioner could relocate to another part of El Salvador. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (“[A]n individual who can relocate safely within his home country ordinarily cannot qualify for asylum”) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(l)(i)(B)). The IJ, therefore, did not err in denying petitioner’s application for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

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