
    Jose Luis ROSALES CARTAGENA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73597.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 22, 2010.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Christina Bechak Parascandola, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis Rosales Cartegena, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals which dismissed his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal.

We reject Rosales Cartegena’s claim that he is eligible for asylum based on his membership in a particular social group, namely persons who suffer persecution due to gang activity, arising from his fear of gangs if he refuses to be recruited into gangs; and the El Salvador government’s inability to control gangs. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.2008) (rejecting as a social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence”). We also reject Rosales Car-tegena’s political opinion claim based on his resistance to the gangs. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (resisting forced recruitment does not necessarily constitute persecution on account of political opinion); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir.2009) (resistance to gang recruitment does not constitute political opinion). Because Rosales Cartegena failed to demonstrate that he was persecuted on account of a protected ground, we uphold the agency’s denial of his withholding of removal claim. Id. at 856.

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