Marco Alavez-Narvaez v. Jefferson B. Sessions, No. 16-3288 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Wollman, Colloton, and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - immigration. This court lacks jurisdiction to review the timeliness of the asylum application or the unexhausted argument claiming protected status based on his membership in a particular social group. Alvarez did not establish a nexus between his feared harm an any protected ground.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3288 ___________________________ Marco Antonio Alavez-Narvaez, 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for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: June 16, 2017 Filed: July 13, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Mexican citizen Marco Alavez-Narvaez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision of an 1 Jefferson B. Sessions, III is substituted for his predecessor under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). immigration judge denying him asylum and withholding of removal. In his pro se appeal, Alavez challenges the immigration judge’s findings regarding the timeliness of his asylum application. He argues for the first time that he is a member of a particular social group whose members are sons of murdered gang leaders. And he claims that he had a well-founded fear of persecution, because the gang had the capability and inclination to punish him for trying to obtain information about his father’s death. This court lacks jurisdiction to review both the timeliness of Alavez’s asylum application, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), and Alavez’s unexhausted argument claiming protected status based on his membership in a particular social group. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Martinez Carcamo v. Holder, 713 F.3d 916, 925 (8th Cir. 2013). We also conclude that Alavez did not establish a nexus between his feared harm and any protected ground, as his perceived threat was based on purely personal retribution. See Martinez-Galarza v. Holder, 782 F.3d 990, 993-94 (8th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
