
    Jose Vidal AGUILAR-ZAVALA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72983.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 3, 2010.
    Stephen John Coghlan, Esquire, Law Office of Stephen Coghlan, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Emily Anne Radford, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Vidal Aguilar-Zavala, 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 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 factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We reject Aguilar-Zavala’s claim that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on his anti-gang political opinion. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir.2008) (holding that “general aversion to gangs does not constitute a political opinion for asylum purposes”). Further, we lack jurisdiction to consider Aguilar-Zavala’s asylum claim based on his social group as a “family comprised of law abiding members who refuse to join gangs or be coerced by gang culture,” because he did not exhaust it before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, because Aguilar-Zavala failed to demonstrate that he was persecuted or fears future persecution on account of a protected ground, we deny in part and dismiss in part 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 in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     