Alex Francisco TICUN-COLOC, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: February 06, 2020
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Benjamin Wiesinger, Ali Manuchehry, Esquire, Attorney, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Sergio Sarkany, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Alex Francisco Ticun-Coloc, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ticun-Coloc failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears in Guatemala was or would be on account of a protected ground, including membership in a particular social group or a political opinion. See 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”); see also 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”); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding a political opinion claim failed where petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of political or ideological opposition to the gang’s ideals or that the gang imputed a particular political belief to the petitioner). Thus, Ticun-Coloc’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Ticun-Coloc failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.