Marvin Gutierrez v. Merrick B. Garland, No. 23-1555 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Erickson, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. With respect to petitioner's request for withholding of removal, the agency did not err in determining petitioner had failed to show there was a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened in Guatemala because of his membership in a particular social group; this court has repeatedly held that resistance to gang membership does not present a cognizable particular social group.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-1555 ___________________________ Marvin Lopez Gutierrez lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: November 27, 2023 Filed: November 30, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan native and citizen Marvin Lopez Gutierrez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed an immigration judge’s denial of withholding of removal. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the agency did not err in determining that Lopez Gutierrez failed to show there was a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened in Guatemala because of his membership in a particular social group, the only protected ground he asserted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Mayorga-Rosa v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 379, 382 (8th Cir. 2018). This court has repeatedly held that resistance to gang membership does not present a cognizable particular social group, and Lopez Gutierrez has offered no evidence or argument that would warrant a different result in his case. See, e.g., Tojin-Tiu v. Garland, 33 F.4th 1020, 1024 (8th Cir. 2022); Juarez Chilel v. Holder, 779 F.3d 850, 855 (8th Cir. 2015); Ortiz-Puentes v. Holder, 662 F.3d 481, 483 (8th Cir. 2011). Because this issue is dispositive of Lopez Gutierrez’s claim, we decline to address his other arguments. See Uriostegui-Teran v. Garland, 72 F.4th 852, 856 (8th Cir. 2023); Miranda v. Sessions, 892 F.3d 940, 944 (8th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. 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.
