
    Carlos Antonio GUARDADO-CARDOZA and Guadalupe Guerra-Alvarado, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70790.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2010.
    
    Filed May 20, 2010.
    Jorge I. Rodriguez-Choi, Esq., Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Alan G. Burrow, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Respondent.
    Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Guardado-Cardoza and Guadalupe Guerra-Alvarado (wife and derivative applicant), natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the oral decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying Guardado-Cardoza’s application for asylum and withholding of removal.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Guardado-Cardoza failed to establish that he suffered persecution on account of a protected ground, specifically membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Guardado-Cardoza’s purported social group — persons with perceived economic wealth or individuals opposed to gangs — does not qualify as a “particular social group” for purposes of asylum, because it lacks both particularity and social visibility. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-47 (9th Cir.2008). Similarly, Guardado-Cardoza’s anti-gang sentiment also fails to qualify, because it is not a political opinion for asylum purposes. See id. at 747 (holding that an alien’s general aversion to gangs did not constitute a political opinion). Accordingly, his asylum claims fails. See id. at 748.

Because Guardado-Cardoza did not satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, he necessarily did not satisfy the more stringent standard of proof for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

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