
    Roger ISIDRO-MEJIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70307.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed May 3, 2011.
    Rosaura Del Carmen Rodriguez, Rodriguez Law, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    
      Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John M. McAdams, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roger Isidro-Mejia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, denying his application for withholding of removal.

Isidro-Mejia contends that the BIA erred in finding no past or future persecution. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the threats Isidro-Mejia received from gang members did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003). In addition, the BIA did not err in concluding that even if the threats constituted persecution, petitioner did not show that he was persecuted on account of a protected ground, such as membership in a social group. See Ramos Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 855-56 (9th Cir.2009) (young Guatemalan men who resisted recruitment into gang did not constitute particular social group and refusal to join gang did not amount to “political opinion”). Finally, contrary to Isidro-Mejia’s contention, the BIA’s opinion stated with sufficient particularity and clarity its reasons for dismissing his appeal. See Castillo v. INS, 951 F.2d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir.1991). Because Isidro-Mejia failed to demonstrate that he was persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition seeking withholding of removal relief. See Ramos-Barrios, 581 F.3d at 856.

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.
     