Kelvin Ramirez v. U.S. Attorney General

Filing

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 http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.--[Edited 04/28/2017 by JRP]

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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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