NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AVIMAEL SECUNDIDO-SOLIS, AKA No. 17-70615 Abimael Solis Secundido, AKA Abimael Secundino Solis, Agency No. A077-106-014 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 11, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Avimael Secundido-Solis, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Secundido- Solis failed to establish the threats as to his father, the denial of a job, and the disappearance of his cousin, even considered cumulatively, rose to the level of persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060 (two incidents of being beaten and robbed and being accosted by a mob did not compel a finding of past persecution, and harm to associates was not ‘closely tied’ to petitioner); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (record did not compel the finding that petitioner experienced past persecution). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Secundido-Solis failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears and a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group” (emphasis in original)); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’s desire to be free from harassment motivated by theft or random violence by gang members has no nexus to a protected ground). Thus, Secondido-Solis’ withholding of removal claim fails. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 17-70615 17-70615 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Avimael Secundido-Solis v. Jefferson Sessions, III 13 April 2018 Agency Unpublished 7d30d963def4993c3d02b1239ab4733b80a696f6
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals