
    Leonel Arnoldo MARTINEZ-SEGOVIA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73131.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2010.
    Leonel Arnoldo Martinez-Segovia, pro se.
    David V. Bernal, OIL, Anthony Cardozo Payne, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. 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

Leonel Arnoldo Martinez-Segovia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, 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), and we review factual findings for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

We reject Martinez-Segovia’s contention that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based upon an anti-gang political opinion. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009); see also Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 746-47 (9th Cir.2008) (denying relief where the “available evidence suggests ... that Santos-Lemus was victimized for economic and personal reasons”). Accordingly, because Martinez-Segovia failed to demonstrate that he was persecuted or fears future persecution on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Bandos, 581 F.3d at 856.

Martinez-Segovia’s contention that the BIA’s streamlined order did not set forth adequate reasons for denying relief is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (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.
     