MEMORANDUM

Israel Cardona, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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 . 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 for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

We reject Cardona’s claim that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on his anti-gang political opinion or membership in a particular social group. See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 860-62 (9th Cir.2009) (concluding young Salvadoran men who are recruited by gangs and refuse to join is not a social group, and refusal to join gangs is not a political opinion); 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”). Accordingly, because Cardona failed to demonstrate he was or will be persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to his asylum and withholding claims. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Car-dona failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th Cir.2008).

Cardona’s due process contention regarding the BIA’s issuance of a streamlined decision is not supported by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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