
    Roberto Antonio MARTINEZ-MONZON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71170.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 20, 2011.
    Claudia Jasmine Lopez, Esquire, Law Offices of Mendez & Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Ali Manuchehry, Esquire, Jennifer Paisner Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roberto Antonio Martinez-Monzon, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals which dismissed his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum and relief under the Convention Against Torture.

We reject claim Martinez-Monzon’s claim that he is eligible for asylum based on his membership in a particular social group, namely, victims of gang violence by gangs that the government cannot control. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.2008) (rejecting as a social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence.”). In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because MartinezMonzon failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured at the acquiescence of the government if he returns to El Salvador. See id. at 748.

We reject Martinez-Monzon’s due process contention regarding the BIA’s issuance of a streamlined decision because a review of the record reveals that the BIA did not issue a streamlined decision.

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