Maria Pena Alvarez v. John D. Ashcroft

Eighth Circuit

Maria Pena Alvarez v. John D. Ashcroft

78 F. App'x 551

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 16, 2003

Docket02-3318

StatusUnpublished

This text of 78 F. App'x 551 (Maria Pena Alvarez v. John D. Ashcroft) 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

Maria Pena Alvarez v. John D. Ashcroft, 78 F. App'x 551 (8th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Colombian citizen Maria Victoria Pena Alvarez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.

We conclude that the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal is supported by substantial evidence. See Perinpanathan v. INS, 310 F.3d 594, 597 (8th Cir.2002) (standard of review); Fran *552 cois v. INS, 288 F.3d 926, 932-33 (8th Cir.2002) (petitioner’s burden for withholding of removal is more onerous than for asylum). Alvarez did not show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her political opinion, i.e., neutrality: she presented no evidence that the persons who called and threatened her did so because of her neutrality; she admitted that she never experienced any physical harm; and she failed to explain how the threats caused her significant suffering or harm. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000) (unfulfilled threats alone do not constitute past persecution, unless threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm; where petitioner was not closely confronted or otherwise harmed, he did not suffer past persecution from threats); Ghasemimehr v. INS, 7 F.3d 1389, 1390-91 (8th.Cir.1993) (per curiam) (where petitioner did not assert police singled him out for search because of his political views, petitioner failed to show past political persecution). Further, her association with an ex-boyfriend who was kidnapped did not establish a well-founded fear, given her testimony that she had had no contact with him since departing Colombia.

We also conclude the BIA properly denied relief under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2002) (burden of proof is on applicant to establish it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to proposed country of removal).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

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

PER CURIAM.

Colombian citizen Maria Victoria Pena Alvarez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.

We conclude that the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal is supported by substantial evidence. See Perinpanathan v. INS, 310 F.3d 594, 597 (8th Cir.2002) (standard of review); Fran *552 cois v. INS, 288 F.3d 926, 932-33 (8th Cir.2002) (petitioner’s burden for withholding of removal is more onerous than for asylum). Alvarez did not show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her political opinion, i.e., neutrality: she presented no evidence that the persons who called and threatened her did so because of her neutrality; she admitted that she never experienced any physical harm; and she failed to explain how the threats caused her significant suffering or harm. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000) (unfulfilled threats alone do not constitute past persecution, unless threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm; where petitioner was not closely confronted or otherwise harmed, he did not suffer past persecution from threats); Ghasemimehr v. INS, 7 F.3d 1389, 1390-91 (8th.Cir.1993) (per curiam) (where petitioner did not assert police singled him out for search because of his political views, petitioner failed to show past political persecution). Further, her association with an ex-boyfriend who was kidnapped did not establish a well-founded fear, given her testimony that she had had no contact with him since departing Colombia.

We also conclude the BIA properly denied relief under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2002) (burden of proof is on applicant to establish it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to proposed country of removal).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 F. App'x 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maria-pena-alvarez-v-john-d-ashcroft-ca8-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack