
    Efrain RODRIGUEZ-NAVA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-73524
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 14, 2017
    Jose Ivan Vargas, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Ivan Vargas, Panorama City, CA, for Petitioner
    Matthew Albert Connelly, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, 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

Efrain Rodriguez-Nava, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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, 612 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 the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in finding Rodriguez-Nava failed to establish a cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1133-37 (9th Cir. 2016) (according deference to the BIA’s articulation of its “particularity” and “social distinction” requirements). Thus, Rodriguez-Nava’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Rodriguez-Nava’s remaining contentions raised in his opening brief.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     