Martha Arenivas-Flores v. William P. Barr

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: February 24, 2020
• Docket: 19-2344
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 19-2344 ___________________________

Martha Arenivas-Flores

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

William P. Barr

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________

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

Submitted: February 14, 2020 Filed: February 24, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Mexican citizen Martha Arenivas-Flores petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the decision of an immigration judge denying her application for withholding of removal. Upon review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal because Arenivas-Flores failed to establish that she is a member of a group that is perceived as a group in Mexican society, failed to establish a valid particular social group for purposes of withholding of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (listing protected grounds), and failed to establish that her membership in a particular social group was a central reason for the claimed persecution and fear of future persecution by Mexican criminal cartels. See Rivas v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 537, 542 (8th Cir. 2018); De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375, 381 (8th Cir. 2013). We further conclude that the BIA’s decision to deny Arenivas-Flores’s request to reinstate the grant of voluntary departure because she failed to post the required voluntary departure bond was consistent with the Attorney General’s regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3). Even if the BIA had discretion to overlook or remedy that failure, we lack jurisdiction to review that decision for abuse of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(I).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

-2-