Sanchez Cruz v. Holder ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1357
JOSE MEDARDO SANCHEZ CRUZ; JOSE ISRRAEL SANCHEZ CRUZ, a/k/a
Jose Israel Sanchez Cruz,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 27, 2010 Decided: October 4, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Linette Tobin, LAW OFFICE OF LINETTE TOBIN, Mt. Rainer,
Maryland, for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Ada E. Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Matthew A.
Spurlock, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Medardo Sanchez Cruz and Jose Isrrael Sanchez
Cruz, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”)
dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s order
denying their applications for asylum, withholding from removal
and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We deny
the petition for review.
The INA authorizes the Attorney General to confer
asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2006). It defines a
refugee as a person unwilling or unable to return to his native
country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006). “Persecution involves the
infliction or threat of death, torture, or injury to one’s
person or freedom, on account of one of the enumerated grounds.
. . .” Qiao Hua Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir.
2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
An alien “bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility
for asylum,” Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir.
2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2010), and can establish
refugee status based on past persecution in his native country
on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)
2
(2010). “An applicant who demonstrates that he was the subject
of past persecution is presumed to have a well-founded fear of
persecution.” Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir.
2004).
Without regard to past persecution, an alien can
establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected
ground. Ngarurih, 371 F.3d at 187. The well-founded fear
standard contains both a subjective and an objective component.
The objective element requires a showing of specific, concrete
facts that would lead a reasonable person in like circumstances
to fear persecution. Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d
351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006). “The subjective component can be met
through the presentation of candid, credible, and sincere
testimony demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution . . . .
[It] must have some basis in the reality of the circumstances
and be validated with specific, concrete facts . . . and it
cannot be mere irrational apprehension.” Qiao Hua Li, 405 F.3d
at 176 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of
fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
3
contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). Legal issues are
reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the BIA’s
interpretation of the INA and any attendant regulations.” Li
Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This
court will reverse the Board only if “the evidence . . .
presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could
fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, “[t]he agency decision that
an alien is not eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive unless
manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.’”
Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the
Board’s and the immigration judge’s finding that the Petitioners
failed to establish that their fear of persecution was on
account of a protected ground. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at
482. Even if the Petitioners’ opposition to joining one of the
gangs in their community can be considered a political opinion,
substantial evidence supports the finding that they failed to
show persecution or fear of persecution on account of that
political opinion. Similarly, the evidence supports the finding
that neither was targeted or will be targeted on account of
their membership in a particular social group.
4
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
5