
    Jorge PARADA-QUINTANILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71883.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 3, 2010.
    Jorge Parada-Quintanilla, Canoga Park, CA, pro se.
    Drew Brinkman, Anthony Paul Nicastro, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, OIL, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, 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

Jorge Parada-Quintanilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We reject petitioner’s claim that he is eligible for asylum based on his membership in a particular social group, namely, young El Salvadoran males who resist efforts by gangs to recruit them. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.2008) (rejecting as a particular social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence”); Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 860-62 (9th Cir.2009) (rejecting as a particular social group “young Honduran men who have been recruited by a [gang], but who refuse to join”). Because petitioner failed to demonstrate he was persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009). We also reject petitioner’s claim that the IJ failed to properly consider his CAT claim because the BIA did consider the claim de novo, and denied the CAT claim.

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