
    Jose Cilidonio FIGEROA-GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Jose Celedonio Figeroa-Gonzalez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71747.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 15, 2010.
    Jose Cilidonio Figeroa-Gonzalez, Glendale, CA, pro se.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Yanal H. You-sef, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Cilidonio Figeroa-Gonzalez, native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review.

The agency’s finding that Figeroa-Gon-zalez did not establish persecution on account of a particular social group is supported by substantial evidence. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d at 1171 (social group comprised of business owners in Columbia who reject narco-trafficker demands too broad to qualify as a particularized social group). Accordingly, Figeroa-Gonzalez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See id. at 1172.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Fig-eroa-Gonzalez failed to establish that 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.
     