Carlos Rueda-Juarez v. Loretta E. Lynch

638 F. App'x 563
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 24, 2016
Docket15-2440
StatusUnpublished

This text of 638 F. App'x 563 (Carlos Rueda-Juarez v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carlos Rueda-Juarez v. Loretta E. Lynch, 638 F. App'x 563 (8th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Carlos Rueda-Jua-rez petitions for review of an order of the' Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for withholding of removal. 1 We conclude that substantial *564 evidence supports the determination that Rueda-Juarez does not qualify for withholding of removal based on his imputed political opinion. See Ming Li Hui v. Holder, 769 F.3d 984, 986 (8th Cir.2014) (reviewing BIA’s decision as final agency-action, but also considering findings and reasoning of IJ if BIA adopted them; decisions are reversed only if petitioner’s evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find in his favor); see also Juarez Chilel v. Holder, 779 F.3d 850, 854 (8th Cir.2015) (to qualify for withholding of removal, alien must show that based on protected ground, he experienced past persecution or there is clear probability his life or freedom would be threatened in proposed country if he was forced to return); cf. Marroquin-Ochoma v. Holder, 574 F.3d 574, 578 (8th Cir.2009) (even assuming, gang operated in political framework, generalized political motive for its forced recruitment would be insufficient to establish that members believed resistance to recruitment was based on anti-gang political motive, and no additional evidence in record supported Guatemalan petitioner’s contention that threats were on account of imputed anti-gang political opinion). The petition for review is denied.

1

. Rueda-Juarez does not challenge the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Wanyama v. Holder, 698 F.3d 1032, 1035 n. 1 (8th Cir.2012) (waiver of claims).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mzenga Wanyama v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
698 F.3d 1032 (Eighth Circuit, 2012)
Marroquin-Ochoma v. Holder
574 F.3d 574 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
Ming Li Hui v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
769 F.3d 984 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)
Carlos Chilel v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
779 F.3d 850 (Eighth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
638 F. App'x 563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlos-rueda-juarez-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca8-2016.