
    Vicenta CORDOVA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73583.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 4, 2010.
    
      John Wolfgang Gehart, Lourdes Barrera Haley, Esquire, Russell M. Jauregui, Esquire, Carlos Yellanoweth, Esquire, Elena Yampolsky, Esquire, Vellanoweth & Ge-hart, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, 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, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vicenta Cordova and her two children, German Cordova-Cordova and Jose Antonio Cordova-Cordova, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal because petitioners failed to show their alleged persecutors threatened them on account of a protected ground. Their fear of future persecution based on an actual or imputed anti-gang or anti-crime opinion is not on account of the protected ground of either membership in a particular social group or political opinion. See Ramos Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir.2009); Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 745-46; see Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir.2001) (“Asylum generally is not available to victims of civil strife, unless they are singled out on account of a protected ground.”).

Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on the Board’s finding that petitioners did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the El Salvadoran government. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir.2007).

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