Juan Xicara-Cotoc v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN XICARA-COTOC,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71134
Agency No. A097-762-975
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Juan Xicara-Cotoc, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of
FILED
MAR 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72915
law de novo, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to
the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing
statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004).
We review for substantial evidence 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 finding that Xicara-Cotoc failed
to establish that he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.
See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2009); Santos-Lemus v.
Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 744-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (applicant’s proposed social group
of young Salvadoran men who resist gang violence lacks both particularity and
social visibility). Accordingly, Xicara-Cotoc’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --