
    Maria Magdalena GARCIA-LEIVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71732.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 28, 2010.
    
      Helen B. Zebel, Esquire, Law Office of Helen B. Zebel, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lisa Morinelli, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District 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

Maria Magdalena Garcia-Leiva, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her 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 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 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 Garcia-Leiva’s contention that she is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based upon political opinion. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir.2008) (denying relief where the “available evidence suggests ... that Santos-Lemus was victimized for economic and personal reasons”); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). We also reject Garcia-Leiva’s contention that she is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based upon her membership in a particular social group comprised of government witnesses against Mara gangs in El Salvador who have been violently attacked, scarred, and threatened. See Velasco-Cervantes v. Holder, 593 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2010) (rejecting as a particular social group “former material witnesses for the government”). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review as to Garcia-Leiva’s asylum and withholding of removal claims.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Garcia-Leiva failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if returned to El Salvador, and therefore we deny the petition as to Garcia-Leiva’s CAT claim. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747-48.

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