
    Rigoberto RAMOS-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72603.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009 .
    Filed Nov. 30, 2009.
    Richard Clay Mendez, Esquire, Law Offices of Mendez & Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Hillel Ryder Smith, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rigoberto Ramos-Lopez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his applications 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, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel reversal of the Id’s conclusion that petitioner failed to establish that the harm he suffered at the hands of gang members in El Salvador was on account of a protected ground. See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 858-62 (9th Cir.2009) (concluding that resistance to gang activity is not a particular social group for the purpose of establishing nexus to a protected ground); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). Accordingly, petitioner’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims fail.

Contrary to petitioner’s allegation, the BIA did not issue a streamlined decision, and the BIA’s decision did not constitute a due process violation. See Falcon Car-riche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003).

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