Luis Cifuentes-Escalante v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-2824 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bye and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Petitioner's claim regarding denial of asylum was not subject to review; petitioner was properly denied withholding of removal as he did not show a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened in Guatemala because of his membership in a particular social group; CAT relief was properly denied. [ April 01, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2824 ___________________________ Luis Francisco Cifuentes-Escalante lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: March 30, 2016 Filed: April 4, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan citizen Luis Francisco Cifuentes-Escalante 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We initially note that, under the circumstances of this case, the denial of asylum is not subject to review. See Bin Jing Chen v. Holder, 776 F.3d 597, 601 (8th Cir. 2015) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review determination that asylum application is untimely unless petition seeks review of constitutional claims or conclusions of law); see also Rodriguez-Mercado v. Lynch, 809 F.3d 415, 420 (8th Cir. 2015) (when issue is abandoned before BIA, it is not preserved for appellate court review). As to the denial of Cifuentes-Escalante’s other claims, we review both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions together, as the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, but added its own reasoning. See Quinonez-Perez v. Holder, 635 F.3d 342, 344 (8th Cir. 2011) (decisions are reviewed to determine if substantial evidence supports them, and are reversed only when petitioner shows evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find in his favor). We conclude that CifuentesEscalante was properly denied withholding of removal, as he did not show a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened in Guatemala because of his membership in a particular social group that he identified. See id. at 345 (to prevail, alien had to show past persecution based on protected ground, creating rebuttable presumption that removal would threaten his life or freedom, or that it is more likely than not he would be persecuted upon removal on account of that protected ground). Finally, we conclude that because Cifuentes-Escalante’s proposed basis for CAT relief did not materially differ from that which he identified as the basis for his other claims, an independent analysis of his CAT claim is not required. See Che v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 778, 783 (8th Cir. 2008) (where applicant presents no evidence he would face torture for reasons unrelated to his applications for asylum and withholding of removal, independent analysis of his CAT claim need not be conducted). The petition for review is denied. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
