
    Cruz Santos AGUILAR-SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71059.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 1, 2010.
    Cruz Santos Aguilar-Santos, Los Ange-les, CA, pro se.
    Christopher McGreal, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCON, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cruz Santos Aguilar-Santos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his application for asylum.

Aguilar-Santos contends that the BIA failed to state sufficient reasons to support its decision. We conclude that the BIA’s decision was sufficiently detailed and reasoned to facilitate our review on appeal. See Villanueva-Franco v. INS, 802 F.2d 327, 330 (9th Cir.1986) (“all that is necessary is a decision that sets out terms sufficient to enable [the] reviewing court to see that the [BIA] has heard, considered, and decided.”) Petitioner also contends that he is entitled to asylum because he will be persecuted for his anti-gang beliefs and his refusal to comply with gang extortion damages.

We reject Aguilar-Santos’s claim that he is eligible for asylum based on alleged persecution arising from his anti-gang opinions and actions. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir.2009); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-47 (9th Cir.2008). Because Aguilar-Santos failed to demonstrate that he suffered harm that rose to the level of persecution or that it was on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition for review.

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