
    Hugo Alexander PEREZ-ESCOBAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73624.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 19, 2010.
    Elena E. Tsiprin, Law Offices of Elena E. Tsiprin, Bellevue, WA, for Petitioner.
    
      Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew Nathan O’Malley, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hugo Alexander Perez-Escobar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal because Perez-Escobar did not demonstrate that he was or would be targeted by gang members on account of his political opinion, membership in a particular social group or any other protected ground. See id. at 482-84, 112 S.Ct. 812; see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir.2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Further, because Perez-Escobar’s family members remain in El Salvador unharmed, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that he has not demonstrated a well-founded fear based on family membership. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743-44 (9th Cir.2008).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Perez-Escobar failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be tortured in El Salvador. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

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