
    Santos Domingo VICENTE-FUENTES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71144.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 24, 2010.
    Steven Arthur Seick, Steven A. Seick, Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, David Michael McConnell, Deputy Director, OIL, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Briena Strippoli, Esquire, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, 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

Santos Domingo Vicente-Fuentes, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for 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). We review for substantial evidence factual findings. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Vicente-Fuentes failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal because he failed to establish past persecution or a clear probability of persecution in Guatemala on account of a protected ground. See id. at 482-84, 112 S.Ct. 812; see also Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 944-46 (9th Cir.2007) (rejecting petitioner’s withholding of removal claim based on membership in a particular social group). Accordingly, Vicente-Fuentes’s withholding of removal claim fails.

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