Kelvin Ramirez v. U.S. Attorney General


Opinion issued by court as to Petitioner Kelvin Scott Ramirez. Decision: Affirmed. Petition Denied in part, Dismissed in part. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link[Edited 04/28/2017 by JRP]

Download PDF
Case: 16-13164 Date Filed: 04/28/2017 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-13164 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-142750 KELVIN SCOTT RAMIREZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 28, 2017) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 16-13164 Date Filed: 04/28/2017 Page: 2 of 3 Kelvin Scott Ramirez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order affirming the denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b), 1231(b)(3). The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the findings of an immigration judge that Ramirez failed to “establish[] a nexus between any past or future harm and an enumerated ground”; that his “fear of returning to Honduras . . . based on general conditions of criminal violence and civil unrest . . . are not cognizable grounds for asylum”; and that he submitted no evidence that “a Honduran official would acquiesce in any torture inflicted upon [Ramirez] by gang members.” We deny in part and dismiss in part Ramirez’s petition. Ramirez’s challenge to the finding that he is ineligible for asylum fails. To qualify for asylum, Ramirez had to prove that he was unable or unwilling to return to Honduras “on account of . . . [his] membership in a particular social group.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). The immigration judge credited Ramirez’s testimony about being harassed and abducted by members of a gang to collect extortion payments and to recruit him to join the gang. Ramirez contends that he is part of a social group of victims of crime, but crime victims are not a social group protected by the Act. “Evidence that either is consistent with acts of private violence or the 2 Case: 16-13164 Date Filed: 04/28/2017 Page: 3 of 3 petitioner’s failure to cooperate with guerillas, or that merely shows that a person has been the victim of criminal activity, does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground.” Rodriguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1302, 1310 (11th Cir. 2013) (brackets omitted) (quoting Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1258 (11th Cir. 2006)). We deny Ramirez’s petition to the extent that he challenges the denial of asylum relief. We lack jurisdiction to review whether Ramirez was entitled to relief under the Convention. Ramirez did not challenge the denial of relief in his appeal to the Board. “We lack jurisdiction to consider a claim raised in a petition for review unless the petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect thereto,” even if the Board sua sponte addresses the issue. Amaya–Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). We dismiss this part of Ramirez’s petition. PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?