ANAIBETH SANCHEZ TOSCANO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, III, No. 17-72625 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 29 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANAIBETH SANCHEZ TOSCANO; et al., Petitioners, No. 17-72625 Agency Nos. v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, A202-033-440 A202-033-441 A202-033-442 MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Anaibeth Sanchez Toscano and her children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We * 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). review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners failed to establish they would be persecuted on account of a protected ground if returned to Mexico. 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); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (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”). Thus, in the absence of a nexus to a protected ground, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1015-16. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 17-72625

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.