Julio Soc-Morales v. William P. Barr

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: March 18, 2019
• Docket: 18-1769
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-1769 ___________________________

Julio Soc-Morales

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

William P. Barr, Attorney General of United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________

Submitted: March 11, 2019 Filed: March 18, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Julio Soc-Morales petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge, which denied him withholding of removal.1 Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court affirms.

This court concludes that substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal because Soc-Morales did not show a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened because of one of the five protected grounds. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (protected grounds include race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, and political opinion); De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375, 379 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); Quinonez-Perez v. Holder, 635 F.3d 342, 345 (8th Cir. 2011) (burden of proof). The group Soc- Morales proposed, and the testimony he provided in support of that group, did not implicate a particular social group. See Mayorga-Rosa v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 379, 383 (8th Cir. 2018) (petitioner must prove his social group was (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct); see also Matul-Hernandez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 707, 711-13 (8th Cir. 2012); Gaitan v. Holder, 671 F.3d 678, 682 (8th Cir. 2012).

Because Soc-Morales did not establish membership in a particular social group, this court declines to address his other arguments. See Mayorga-Rosa, 888 F.3d at 385.

The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

1 The denial of asylum and relief under the Convention Against Torture is not before the panel. See Agha v. Holder, 743 F.3d 609, 616 (8th Cir. 2014).

-2-