NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SERGIO ALFREDO COC-LACAN, No. 16-70286 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-300-873 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 16, 2018** Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Sergio Alfredo Coc-Lacan, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review * 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). for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that, even if Coc- Lacan’s family constitutes a particular social group, he failed to establish a nexus between the harm he experienced in the past and fears in the future 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)); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2002) (petitioner failed to establish nexus where “the evidence would permit a finding” that he was persecuted on account of his family membership, but did not “compel that finding” (emphasis in original)); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Contrary to Coc-Lacan’s contentions, the BIA did not err in declining to reach his additional arguments regarding past persecution or a well- founded future fear of persecution. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-70286 16-70286 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Sergio Coc-Lacan v. Jefferson Sessions 19 January 2018 Agency Unpublished 4596168bb9cc6fb3b3517ef08493d12f70596116
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals