
    Melvin Mazariegos ZACARIAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70978.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 20, 2011.
    Tamiko O. Moore, Law Office of Tamiko O. Moore, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Russell J.E. Verby, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Melvin Mazariegos Zacarías, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Zacarías contends he suffered harm from gang members during two assaults on account of his actual or imputed political opinion. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that the gang intended to recruit him, and thus Zacarías failed to establish the required nexus to a protected ground. See id. at 747 (“resistance to a gang’s recruitment efforts aloné [does not] constitute[ ] political opinion”). Accordingly, Zacarías’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Zacarías did not establish a likelihood of torture upon return to Guatemala. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 748. Accordingly, his CAT claim also fails.

Zacarías’ contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence fails because he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).

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