Armando Soto v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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.
June 9, 2009
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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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
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
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
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).
persecution F.3d 182,
protected (4th Cir.
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
subjective of candid,
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
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
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?