context: 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.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 640 F.3d 1095, 1097
citation_a.parenthetical: 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
citation_a.sentence: 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.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 622 F.3d 1007, 1016
citation_b.parenthetical: "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."
citation_b.sentence: 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.”).