MEMORANDUM **

Oscar Alexandre Mendez-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions *647 pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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. Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mendez-Martinez failed to demonstrate that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on his membership in a particular social group. See id. at 855-56 (petitioner who resisted gang recruitment did not establish persecution on account of a protected ground); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-47 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, Mendez-Martinez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Barrios, 581 F.3d at 856.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Mendez-Martinez did not establish a likelihood of being tortured in El Salvador by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747-48. Mendez-Martinez’s contention that the IJ applied the wrong legal standard concerning his CAT claim is belied by the record.

Finally, Mendez-Martinez’s claim that the BIA erred because it did not comment on the arguments in his brief fails. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.