From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ticun-Coloc v. Barr

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 6, 2020
No. 16-73415 (9th Cir. Feb. 6, 2020)

Opinion

No. 16-73415

02-06-2020

ALEX FRANCISCO TICUN-COLOC, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency No. A088-769-667 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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.


Summaries of

Ticun-Coloc v. Barr

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 6, 2020
No. 16-73415 (9th Cir. Feb. 6, 2020)
Case details for

Ticun-Coloc v. Barr

Case Details

Full title:ALEX FRANCISCO TICUN-COLOC, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Feb 6, 2020

Citations

No. 16-73415 (9th Cir. Feb. 6, 2020)