Pedro Lopez-Ramirez v. Loretta E. Lynch , 670 F. App'x 916 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 16-1673
    ___________________________
    Pedro Eliseo Lopez-Ramirez
    lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
    v.
    Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States
    lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
    ____________
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    ____________
    Submitted: November 30, 2016
    Filed: December 6, 2016
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Guatemalan citizen Pedro Eliseo Lopez-Ramirez petitions for review of an
    order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an immigration judge’s
    (IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Where, as
    here, the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision, but adds its own reasoning, this
    court reviews both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions together. See Garcia-Milian v.
    Lynch, 
    825 F.3d 943
    , 945 (8th Cir. 2016) (decisions are reviewed to determine if
    substantial evidence supports them, and are reversed only when petitioner shows
    evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find in his favor).
    To qualify for asylum, Mr. Lopez-Ramirez had to show past persecution or a well-
    founded fear of future persecution on account of, as relevant, membership in a
    particular social group. See Garcia-Colindres v. Holder, 
    700 F.3d 1153
    , 1156 (8th
    Cir. 2012). Further, he had to show that the particular social group he identified was
    composed of members who shared a common immutable characteristic, were defined
    with particularity, and were socially distinct within the society in question. See
    Ngugi v. Lynch, 
    826 F.3d 1132
    , 1137-38 (8th Cir. 2016). We conclude that the group
    he identified--Guatemalan males whose denial of gang involvement caused them to
    be beaten before coming to the United States--failed to meet those requirements. See
    Juarez Chilel v. Holder, 
    779 F.3d 850
    , 855 (8th Cir. 2015) (groups of persons who
    suffered violence, or threats of violence, due to their refusals to join criminal gangs
    lacks requisite visibility, particularity, and/or social distinction to qualify as particular
    social group); Ortiz-Puentes v. Holder, 
    662 F.3d 481
    , 483 (8th Cir. 2011) (agreeing
    with IJ and BIA that criminal violence and recruitment efforts by Guatemalan gang
    did not implicate enumerated protected ground). Because Mr. Lopez-Ramirez did not
    establish eligibility for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily
    failed as well. See Ngugi, 826 F.3d at 1139 (withholding of removal requires higher
    burden of proof than asylum). The petition for review is denied.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-1673

Citation Numbers: 670 F. App'x 916

Judges: Shepherd, Arnold, Kelly

Filed Date: 12/6/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024