Jose Zepeda v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, No. 16-2033 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Arnold and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. No reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that petitioner met his burden of proving his entitlement to asylum, and the denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims is affirmed. [ March 13, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2033 ___________________________ Jose Isaias Zepeda, also known as Jose Isias Zepeda lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III,1 Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: March 7, 2017 Filed: March 14, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. 1 Jefferson B. Sessions, III has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). Jose Zepeda, a citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) order denying asylum and withholding of removal. This court reviews the BIA’s decision as the final agency action, and to the extent the BIA adopted the IJ’s findings or reasoning, as it did here, this court also reviews the IJ’s decision. See Diaz-Perez v. Holder, 750 F.3d 961, 963-64 (8th Cir. 2014) (IJ’s finding of facts are reviewed under deferential substantial evidence standard, and findings must be treated as conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach contrary conclusion). To establish eligibility for asylum, Mr. Zepeda had to show that he is unwilling or unable to return to El Salvador because of persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of his membership in the particular social group he identified. See Flores v. Holder, 699 F.3d 998, 1002-03 (8th Cir. 2012). We find that no reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that Mr. Zepeda met his burden of proving his entitlement to asylum; and thus that his claim for withholding of removal necessarily failed as well, see Sow v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 953, 956 (8th Cir. 2008) (alien who fails to meet standard for asylum cannot meet more rigorous standard for establishing eligibility for withholding of removal). 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.
