Maria Guardado de Ruiz v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 10-2196 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2196 MARIA ANTONIA GUARDADO, GUARDADO DE RUIZ; BALMORE MANUEL RUIZ- Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 19, 2011 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Erin Hustings, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, Melissa K. Lott, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Maria Antonia Guardado de Ruiz ( Guardado de Ruiz ) and her daughter, Balmore Manuel Ruiz-Guardado, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge s order denying the applications for asylum, withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). withholding under the We deny the petition for review. Guardado de Ruiz, who was the primary applicant for relief, claimed she was persecuted on account of her membership in a particular social group: current workers in the transport industry. and past owners and The Board concluded that while Guardado de Ruiz did identify a particular social group, she failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her membership in that group. The Board found that it was not her membership in the group that motivated the gangs, but rather the gangs desires to increase their own revenues. The Immigration and Nationality Act ( INA ) authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. § 1158(a) (2006). 8 U.S.C. It defines a refugee as a person unwilling or unable to return to her native country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution 2 on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Persecution involves 8 the U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) infliction or threat (2006). of death, torture, or injury to one s person or freedom, on account of one of the enumerated grounds . . . . F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005) Qiao Hua Li v. Gonzales, 405 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). An alien bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility for asylum, Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2010), and can establish refugee status based on past persecution in her native country on account of a protected ground. (2010). 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) An applicant who demonstrates that he was the subject of past persecution is presumed to have a well-founded fear of persecution. 2004). establish ground. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. Without a Id. regard to well-founded past fear of persecution, persecution an on alien a can protected The well-founded fear standard contains both a subjective and an objective component. The objective element requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would lead a reasonable person Gandziami-Mickhou in v. like circumstances Gonzales, 445 2006). 3 F.3d to fear 351, persecution. 353 (4th Cir. To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, an alien must show a clear probability that, if she were removed to her native country, her life or freedom would be threatened on a protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2006); see Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). A clear probability means that it is more likely than not that the INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. alien would be subject to persecution. 407, 429-30 (1984). The protected ground must being targeted for persecution. be a central reason for A central reason is one that is more than incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate See Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, to another reason for harm. 556 F.3d 159, 164 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting In re J-B-N-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 208, 214 (BIA 2007)). A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). INS v. Elias- Substantial evidence is such evidence that is relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate Karimijanaki v. Holder, Administrative findings credibility, would be 579 F.3d of are conclusive compelled to to support 710, fact, unless decide to 4 714 a conclusion. (6th including Cir. 2010). findings any reasonable the contrary. on adjudicator 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). Legal issues are reviewed de novo, affording appropriate deference to the BIA s interpretation of the INA and any attendant regulations. F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). Lin v. Mukasey, 517 This court will reverse the Board only if the evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see fear of persecution. Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board s findings and that the record does not compel a different result. The opinion in Tapiero de Orejuela v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 666, 672-73 (7th Cir. 2005), is clearly distinguishable because there was evidence that the persecutors were motivated to target the characteristics. group based on the group s immutable We also find Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980, 997-98 (6th Cir. 2009), to be clearly distinguishable as the evidence motivated by in that class case showed differences and that the the persecutor Petitioner s was class refusal to submit to the paternal society. We also conclude Guardado de Ruiz failed to exhaust her claim that she was persecuted on account of her family. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006); See Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004) ( We have no jurisdiction to consider this argument, however, because [the alien] failed to make it 5 before the Board administrative and, therefore, remedies. ). In failed addition, to we exhaust note all that she abandoned her claims regarding the Board s denial of CAT relief and that she has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her actual or perceived political opinion. See Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 6

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.