Armando Soto v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090702

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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