
    Sergio Alfredo COC-LACAN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-70286
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 16, 2018 
    
    Filed January 19, 2018
    Kenneth Larkin VanDerhoef, Attorney, Higuera & VanDerhoef PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David Kim, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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