Tomas Tarce v. Michael B. Mukasey

Eighth Circuit

Tomas Tarce v. Michael B. Mukasey

309 F. App'x 75

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided February 4, 2009·No. 08-1433·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Tomas Tarce petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

After careful review of the record, we conclude the decision of the IJ and the BIA — that Tarce failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground — is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 982-83 (8th Cir.2005) (standard of review); see also Quomsieh v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 602, 605 (8th Cir. 2007) (when BIA adopts IJ’s decision and adds its own reasoning, this court reviews both decisions together). Because Tarce alleged the same factual basis for all his claims, the conclusions that support the denial of his asylum claim also support the denial of his withholding-of-removal and CAT claims. See Samedov v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 704, 708-09 (8th Cir.2005).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

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

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Tomas Tarce petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

After careful review of the record, we conclude the decision of the IJ and the BIA — that Tarce failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground — is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 982-83 (8th Cir.2005) (standard of review); see also Quomsieh v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 602, 605 (8th Cir. 2007) (when BIA adopts IJ’s decision and adds its own reasoning, this court reviews both decisions together). Because Tarce alleged the same factual basis for all his claims, the conclusions that support the denial of his asylum claim also support the denial of his withholding-of-removal and CAT claims. See Samedov v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 704, 708-09 (8th Cir.2005).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

Tomas Tarce v. Michael B. Mukasey, 309 F. App'x 75 (8th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

309 F. App'x 75 (Tomas Tarce v. Michael B. Mukasey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related