
    Jose Roberto FIGUEROA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73424.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 24, 2011.
    Gloria Lopez, Law Office of Gloria Lopez, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Matthew Allan Spurlock, Ada Elsie Bosque, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Roberto Figueroa, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 for substantial evidence, Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 861-62 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

We reject Figueroa’s claim that he is eligible for asylum based on his membership in a particular social group, namely young Salvadorans who are targeted by gangs to prevent them from reporting crime. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.2008) (rejecting as a social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence.”); see also Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir.2009) (rejecting “government informants” as a particular social group because they are not a “narrowly defined” or “cohesive, homogeneous” group).

Because Figueroa failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, he necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Ochave, 254 F.3d at 868.

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.
     