Miguel Martinez-Merlos, et al v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Diana E. Murphy, Lavenski R. Smith and Steven M. Colloton (UNPUBLISHED); Denying [3932585-2] petition for review filed by Petitioners Miguel Angel Martinez-Merlos and Cristina Martinez. [4022100] [12-2658]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-2658 ___________________________ Miguel Angel Martinez-Merlos; Cristina Martinez lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: March 20, 2013 Filed: April 5, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Miguel Martinez-Merlos (Martinez-Merlos), a citizen of El Salvador, and his wife Christina Martinez (Martinez), a citizen of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an immigration judge’s adverse decision. After careful consideration of the petition, we find no basis for reversal. Appellate Case: 12-2658 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2013 Entry ID: 4022100 First, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Martinez-Merlos’s application for cancellation of removal. See Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir. 2007) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of cancellation of removal for failure to prove exceptional and extremely unusual hardship); see also Gomez-Perez v. Holder, 569 F.3d 370, 372-73 (8th Cir. 2009) (jurisdictional bar applied to petitioner’s argument that BIA had applied “an incorrect legal standard by failing to adequately consider certain factors,” as petitioner was merely challenging BIA’s discretionary conclusion that circumstances did not merit cancellation of removal). Second, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s decision to deny Martinez asylum and withholding of removal. See Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775, 781, 784 (8th Cir. 2008) (this court upholds denial of asylum if it is supported by substantial evidence; denial of asylum dictates same outcome on withholding-of-removal claim based on same underlying factual allegations); see also Constanza v. Holder, 647 F.3d 749, 753 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (membership in particular social group requires that members hold immutable characteristic, or common trait such as sex, color, kinship, or shared past experiences, and that group has sufficient particularity and visibility to be perceived by society as cohesive group). Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 12-2658 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2013 Entry ID: 4022100

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?