Armando Soto v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090702

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2092 ARMANDO ALDUNATE SOTO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 9, 2009 Decided: July 2, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Carol Federighi, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Armando Bolivia, petitions Appeals Aldunate for Soto, of a an native order his and of citizen Board from of of the review the Immigration ("Board") dismissing appeal immigration judge's order denying his applications for asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). The INA We deny the petition for review. the Attorney General to confer authorizes 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 on of persecution of or a well-founded religion, fear of persecution account race, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A) or threat of (2006). death, "Persecution or involves to the infliction torture, injury one's person or freedom, on account of one of the enumerated grounds. . . ." 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) (2009), and can establish refugee status based on past persecution in his native country on account of a protected ground. (2009). Without regard to past 2 8 C.F.R. 1208.13(b)(1) persecution, an alien can establish ground. 2004). a well-founded v. fear of persecution F.3d 182, on a protected (4th Cir. Ngarurih Ashcroft, 371 187 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 v. like circumstances 445 F.3d can and to fear persecution. (4th Cir. the Gandziami-Mickhou 2006). "The Gonzales, 351, be 353 subjective of candid, component credible, met through presentation 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." 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. Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). INS v. Elias- Administrative findings of fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the 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 3 any attendant regulations." Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). court will reverse the Board only if "the evidence . This . . 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). We find substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that Soto did not belong to a particular social group that would warrant asylum or withholding from removal. See In re C-A-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 951, 961 (BIA 2006) (non-criminal drug informant working against a drug cartel does not have the requisite social visibility to constitute a particular social group). Likewise, we find substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that Soto's family in this instance was not a particular social group warranting that he be granted asylum or withholding from removal. See Lopez-Soto v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 228, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2004) (substantial evidence supported the Board's decision that Petitioner did not show he was targeted because of family membership). Insofar as Soto argues he was targeted by drug traffickers for his political opinion, this court does not have jurisdiction to review the claim because he did not raise the claim on appeal to the Board. Mickhou, 445 F.3d at 359 n.2. We further See Gandziamisubstantial find 4 evidence supports the Board's finding that Soto was not eligible for relief under the CAT. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny the petition the for facts review. and We legal argument because contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 5

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?