SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

Petitioner Ana Alicia Ramirez-Martinez, and her son, David Alexander Reyes-Ramirez, natives and citizens of Honduras, seek review of a BIA decision affirming an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of Ramirez-Martinez's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Ana Alicia Ramirez-Martinez, David Alexander Reyes-Ramirez, Nos. A 206 781 781/782 (B.I.A. May 1, 2017), aff'g No. A 206 781 781/782 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 16, 2016). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ's decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, treating them as "conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). We review questions of law de novo. Paloka, 762 F.3d at 195.

Ramirez-Martinez claimed asylum and withholding of removal based on her membership in a particular social group, which she defined as "Honduran single mothers who are small business owners."1 In order to demonstrate her eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, Ramirez-Martinez had to "establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or w[ould] be at least one central reason for" her persecution. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A); Matter of C----T----L----, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 348 (B.I.A. 2010). In order for her group to constitute a particular social group, it had to be "(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question." Matter of M----E----V----G----, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (B.I.A. 2014); see also Paloka, 762 F.3d at 196.

Even assuming arguendo that single mothers who are small business owners comprise a cognizable group,2 the BIA did not err in denying Ramirez-Martinez's claims for asylum and withholding of removal because she failed to establish that a protected ground was a central reason for her past harm or fear of future harm. She did not assert that the gang members who threatened her mentioned her status as a woman, single mother, or small business owner. Rather, Ramirez-Martinez's application stated that she feared "crime and delinquency that is prevalent" throughout Honduras, and which was "on the rise because of . . . poverty." CAR 472. She stated that "[c]riminals extort law abiding citizens for their money, which they earn through their hard work." Id. In addition, record evidence indicates that gang extortion is common in Honduras and affects "all sectors of the economy." CAR 264. Therefore, there is no evidence that Ramirez-Martinez was targeted because of her membership in the purported social group as opposed to her resources. Because a fear of "general crime conditions" is not a ground for asylum, the BIA did not err in denying her application. Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 314 (2d Cir. 1999); see also In re M----E----V----G----, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 249-51 ("The national community may struggle with significant societal problems resulting from gangs, but not all societal problems are bases for asylum.").

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.