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

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Diana E. Murphy, Lavenski R. Smith and Steven M. Colloton (UNPUBLISHED); Denying [3932585-2] petition for review filed by Petitioners Miguel Angel Martinez-Merlos and Cristina Martinez.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

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[Unpublished]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