Gualberto Cruz-Machorro v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 11-2124 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2124 GUALBERTO ZURIEL CRUZ-MACHORRO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 2, 2012 Decided: October 18, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher T. Handman, Adam N. Bitter, A. Elizabeth King, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Erica B. Miles, Senior Litigation Counsel, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Gualberto Zuriel Cruz-Machorro, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) granting in part his motion to reconsider and amending its decision of August 19, 2010, which affirmed the requests for immigration asylum, judge s denial withholding of of removal, under the Convention Against Torture. Cruz-Machorro s and protection For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review. 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- Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. (2006). Legal issues to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) are reviewed the [Board] s de novo, affording appropriate deference [Immigration and regulations. Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This court will reverse the Board only if the Nationality Act] interpretation and any of the attendant evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 316, 296 F.3d 325 n.14 (4th 2 Cir. 2002). Furthermore, [t]he agency decision that an alien is not eligible for asylum is conclusive unless manifestly abuse of discretion. contrary to the law and an Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that substantial Cruz-Machorro evidence failed to supports the establish agency s that his finding membership that in a particular social group was at least one central reason for any persecution he § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) suffered (2006) in Guatemala. (providing that See an 8 asylum U.S.C. applicant must establish that the protected ground asserted was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant ); Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159, 164-65 (4th Cir. 2009) (finding that money and personal animosity, not religion or political opinion, motivated initial assaults on alien and concluding that alien provided no evidence that his religious or political beliefs were more than incidental or tangential to any part of the persecution he suffered ). the denial of Cruz-Machorro s withholding of removal. 367 (4th Cir. 2004) requests We therefore uphold for asylum and See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, ( Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum even though the facts that must be proved are the same an applicant who is 3 ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3). ). Additionally, Cruz-Machorro challenges the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. To qualify for such protection, a petitioner bears the burden of proof of showing it is more likely than not that he or she would be removal. tortured if removed to the proposed 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2012). country of Based on our review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of his request for relief. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review). 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 4
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.
