Dolores Castillo Tovar v. Loretta E. Lynch, No. 16-2063 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Arnold and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for review - Immigration. Denial of withholding of removal affirmed; substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner does not qualify for withholding of removal based on her membership in the particular social group she identified. [ March 01, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2063 ___________________________ Dolores Castillo Tovar lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: February 14, 2017 Filed: March 2, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Mexican citizen Dolores Castillo Tovar petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of withholding of removal.1 Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision, but also adds its own reasoning, this court reviews both decisions together. See Aguinada-Lopez v. Lynch, 825 F.3d 407, 408 (8th Cir. 2016) (factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and are reversed only if any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach contrary conclusion). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the determination that Mrs. Castillo Tovar does not qualify for withholding of removal based on her membership in the particular social group she identified. See Gonzalez Cano v. Lynch, 809 F.3d 1056, 1058 (8th Cir. 2016) (to establish entitlement to withholding of removal, petitioner must demonstrate clear probability that her life or freedom would be threatened due to, among other things, membership in particular social group; applicant must show it is more likely than not she would suffer persecution if returned to home country). The petition for review is denied. ______________________________ 1 This court lacks jurisdiction to consider Mrs. Castillo Tovar’s challenge to the denial of voluntary departure. See Cinto-Velasquez v. Lynch, 817 F.3d 602, 607 (8th Cir. 2016). -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.
