Marquez-Paz v. Barr ( 2020 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 19-2230
CLEMENTINO MARQUEZ-PAZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Kayatta, Boudin, and Barron,
Circuit Judges.
Daniel T. Welch and MacMurry & Associates on brief for
petitioner.
Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Carl E. McIntyre, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration
Litigation, and Virginia Lum, Trial Attorney, Civil Division
Office of Immigration Litigation, on brief for respondent.
December 18, 2020
BOUDIN, Circuit Judge. Clementino Marquez-Paz petitions
this court to review a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA")
decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention
Against Torture ("CAT").
Marquez-Paz fled his native Honduras in 2014, after an
unidentified man repeatedly offered him a job selling cocaine. He
believes the man targeted him because he had recently sold a parcel
of land worth approximately $25,000. When Marquez-Paz delayed,
the man threatened him and his family with death and flashed a gun
at him.
Marquez-Paz pretended to accept the offer, but soon
after, he left the country, entering the United States without
inspection in May of 2014. The Department of Homeland Security
initiated removal proceedings against him. Before an Immigration
Judge ("IJ"), Marquez-Paz conceded removability but cross-applied
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT.
The IJ determined that his claim for asylum was time-
barred; denied withholding of removal on the ground that he failed
to show "persecution" or a nexus between the alleged persecution
and a statutorily protected ground; and dismissed his petition for
CAT relief because he had not shown any governmental involvement
in the feared harm. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision.
- 2 -
Marquez-Paz's brief challenges only the findings that he
suffered no persecution and that any alleged persecution was not
caused by his membership in the particular social group of
"Honduran landowners." His arguments as to asylum and protection
under CAT are therefore waived. United States v. Zannino, 895
F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990). We review the agency's factual
findings under the substantial evidence standard, meaning we
accept the findings unless the record compels a contrary
conclusion. Ruiz-Escobar v. Sessions, 881 F.3d 252, 259 (1st Cir.
2018).
To gain withholding of removal, Marquez-Paz must show a
clear probability that he would be persecuted in his home country
on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(A); Morgan v. Holder, 634 F.3d 53, 60 (1st Cir. 2011).
Even if we concluded that Marquez-Paz established a clear
probability of persecution, his claim would fail because he did
not prove a nexus between the alleged persecution and a statutorily
protected ground (in his case, membership in his proposed
particular social group of "Honduran landowners"1).
Though the statutory ground need not be the only reason
for the alleged persecution, Marquez-Paz must provide some
1 We assume without deciding that "Honduran landowners" are a
valid particular social group.
- 3 -
evidence that it was "one central reason." Costa v. Holder, 733
F.3d 13, 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)).
Marquez-Paz testified before the IJ that he believed he was
targeted because he had some money available after selling a tract
of land. However, his speculation is insufficient to establish
the required nexus, Guerra-Marchorro v. Holder, 760 F.3d 126, 129-
30 (1st Cir. 2014), and Marquez-Paz was unable to provide other
evidence to support his claim. In fact, Marquez-Paz testified
that the man who threatened him never asked him for money, he did
not know how the man might have learned of the sale, and his family
has remained in Honduras undisturbed. And although he argues that
it was generally known that his family owned land and that gangs
in Honduras sometimes force landowners off their property, the
record does not compel a finding that that was the motive in this
case.
The petition for review is denied.
- 4 -