NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 6 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEX FRANCISCO TICUN-COLOC, No. 16-73415
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-769-667
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 4, 2020**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
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
*
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).
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
2 16-73415
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.
3 16-73415