MEMORANDUM **

Manuel Garcia-Galvez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of *756 the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s claim that the IJ erred by excluding certain documents from the record. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

We reject petitioner’s claim that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on his membership in a particular social group, namely, El Salvadoreans who refuse to join gangs and are consequently threatened. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting as a particular social group “young males in Guatemala who are targeted for gang recruitment but refuse because they disagree with the gang’s criminal activities”); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting as a particular social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence”) (internal quotation omitted). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioner failed to establish persecution on account of political opinion. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747. Accordingly, because petitioner failed to establish that he was persecuted and that he fears persecution on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Barrios, 581 F.3d at 856.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioner failed to establish a likelihood of torture in El Salvador. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.