
    Irma Cruz MATUTE-CALDERON; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73345.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 12, 2011.
    Filed May 20, 2011.
    Carol A. Dvorkin, Esquire, Law Firm of Carol A. Dvorkin, Half Moon Bay, CA, for Petitioners.
    James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nehal Kamani, OIL, Sarah L. Vuong, Emily Anne Radford, 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: B. FLETCHER and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Southern Texas, Houston, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Irma Cruz Matute-Calderon and her siblings, Vicente Omar Matute-Calderon and Mariela Matute-Calderon, petition for review of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) and Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not recount it here.

Matute-Calderón and her siblings claim they have a well-founded fear of persecution based on their membership in a “particular social group,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Because the record as developed does not establish that the claimed social group has the requisite “social visibility” and “particularity” to constitute a viable “social group” under immigration law, the BIA and IJ did not err in denying the applications. See, e.g., Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 859-61 (9th Cir.2009) (holding that young Honduran men who resisted recruitment into a Central American gang did not possess sufficient social visibility or particularity to constitute a “particular social group”).

We need not and do not reach any other issues urged by the parties.

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