Fredy Gramajo-Lopez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Per Curiam OPINION filed : Gramajo-Lopez's petition for review is DENIED, decision not for publication. Eric L. Clay, Circuit Judge; Jane Branstetter Stranch, Circuit Judge and Timothy S. Black, U.S. District Judge.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0507n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Jul 10, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
FROM THE UNITED STATES
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
BEFORE: CLAY and STRANCH, Circuit Judges; BLACK, District Judge.
PER CURIAM. Fredy Gramajo-Lopez petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Gramajo-Lopez is a native and citizen of Guatemala. He entered the United States in
June 2007. In December 2010, Gramajo-Lopez filed an application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the CAT, alleging that, if he is returned to Guatemala, he will be
persecuted and tortured because of his refusal to join a criminal gang. The IJ denied GramajoLopez relief, concluding that his asylum application was untimely and that he failed to
demonstrate that he was likely to be tortured if returned to Guatemala. The IJ further concluded
that, for purposes of withholding of removal, Gramajo-Lopez failed to establish that he was a
The Honorable Timothy S. Black, United States District Judge for the Southern District
of Ohio, sitting by designation.
Gramajo-Lopez v. Holder
member of a particular social group or that he was likely to be persecuted by the Guatemalan
government or individuals who the government is unable or unwilling to control. The BIA
affirmed the IJ’s decision.
On appeal, Gramajo-Lopez argues that the IJ and BIA erred by concluding that he failed
to establish that he was a member of a particular social group for purposes of asylum and
withholding of removal. Gramajo-Lopez also argues that the BIA erred by affirming the IJ’s
decision without meaningful analysis. Despite Gramajo-Lopez’s argument to the contrary, the
record reflects that the BIA gave appropriate consideration to the issues that he raised and
adequately explained its decision to deny him relief. See Akhtar v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 399, 408
(6th Cir. 2005). Where, as here, the BIA does not summarily affirm or adopt the IJ’s reasoning
and provides an explanation for its decision, we review the BIA’s decision as the final agency
determination. Ilic-Lee v. Mukasey, 507 F.3d 1044, 1047 (6th Cir. 2007). We review de novo
questions of law. Abdurakhmanov v. Holder, 735 F.3d 341, 345 (6th Cir. 2012).
To the extent that Gramajo-Lopez argues that his asylum application was meritorious, we
need not review the claim because Gramajo-Lopez has failed to challenge the dispositive finding
that his asylum application was untimely. See Khozhaynova v. Holder, 641 F.3d 187, 191 (6th
Cir. 2011). Likewise, to the extent that Gramajo-Lopez challenges the conclusion that he failed
to establish membership in a particular social group for purposes of withholding of removal, we
need not review the claim because Gramajo-Lopez has not challenged the dispositive finding that
he failed to demonstrate that he was likely to be persecuted by the Guatemalan government or
individuals who the government is unable or unwilling to control.
557 F.3d 429, 435-36 (6th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, we DENY Gramajo-Lopez’s petition for review.
See Khalili v. Holder,
Gramajo-Lopez v. Holder
It is so ORDERED.
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?