
    Jose Benito ARTEAGA HERNANDEZ, Petitioner v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
    No. 15-60700 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 09/01/2016
    
      Gino Mario Mesa, Esq., Law Office of Gino M. Mesa, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Juria L. Jones, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/OIL, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Benito Arteaga Hernandez, a native and citizen of Honduras, has filed a petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for withholding of removal. Ar-teaga Hernandez sought withholding of removal based on problems with gangs in Honduras.

We review the order of the BIA and will consider the underlying decision of the immigration judge only if it had some impact upon the BIA’s decision. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2011). “To be eligible for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1138 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Arteaga Hernandez contends that he showed past persecution and a clear probability of future persecution based on his membership in a group of Hondurans who were unsuccessfully recruited by gangs, beaten, reported the beating to authorities, and continue to be threatened by gang members. Under the substantial evidence standard, the BIA’s determination that Ar-teaga Hernandez is not eligible for withholding of removal does not warrant reversal as Arteaga Hernandez’s purported group is not protected for purposes of withholding of removal. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 517; Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm, R. 47.5.4.
     