
    Juan XICARA-COTOC, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71134.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 6, 2012.
    
    Filed March 14, 2012.
    Sharon A. Healey, Law Office of Sharon A. Healey, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Allison Frayer, Ilissa M. Gould, 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: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Xieara-Cotoc, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, 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 for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Xicara-Cotoc failed to establish that he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 855 (9th Cir.2009); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 744-46 (9th Cir.2008) (applicant’s proposed social group of young Salvadoran men who resist gang violence lacks both particularity and social visibility). Accordingly, Xicara-Cotoc’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

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