SERGIO COC-LACAN V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-70286 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SERGIO ALFREDO COC-LACAN, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-70286 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 CocLacan’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 wellfounded 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
