
    Nildelson PALACIOS-GERARDO, AKA Rifo Moniker, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70047
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017 
    
    Filed July 3, 2017
    Nildelson Palacios-Gerardo, Pro Se
    
      David Nicholas Harling, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, OIL, David J. Schor, Trial Attorney, 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: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nildelson Palacios-Gerardo, 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 withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 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. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in finding Palac-ios-Gerardo failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2016) (proposed social group of former gang members who have returned to El Salvador is not cognizable); Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 945 (9th Cir. 2007) (tattooed former gang members does not constitute a particular social group). Thus, we deny the petition as to his withholding of removal claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Palacios-Gerardo’s CAT claim because he did not demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

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