
    Jorge Faustino SEGOVIA-GUEVARA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-60892
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 26, 2010.
    Gino Mario Mesa, Law Office of Gino M. Mesa, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Elizabeth Young, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jorge Faustino Segovia-Guevara (Segovia), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s order denying his application for withholding of removal. Segovia had argued that he suffered persecution in El Salvador because of his refusal to join a gang. The BIA concluded that Segovia had not shown that he was targeted for persecution in the past, or would be targeted in the future, because of his membership in a particular social group or for his political opinion.

We review the decision of the BIA and will consider the IJ’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir.2009). “Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, which requires only that the BIA’s decisions be supported by record evidence and be substantially reasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

“[Withholding of removal is a mandatory form of relief if an alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in the country of removal because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Shaikh, 588 F.3d at 864. An alien must show that one of these protected grounds “was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” Id. The determination that Segovia has not shown membership in a particular social group or political opinion is supported by the record and is substantially reasonable. See id. at 863. Because he has not demonstrated that any protected ground was a central reason for the alleged persecution, Segovia has not demonstrated that the BIA erred in denying withholding of removal.

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
     