Carlos Portillo-Escobar v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., No. 14-1069 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Petition for Review - Immigration. Omaha Immigration Court. Whether or not the group at issue qualifies as a particular social group, the IJ did not err in determining that petitioner had not established that he would persecuted upon his return to El Salvador based on membership in the group.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1069 ___________________________ Carlos Portillo-Escobar lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: October 7, 2014 Filed: October 17, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. El Salvadoran citizen Carlos Portillo-Escobar (Portillo) petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge s (IJ s) denial of withholding of removal. When, as here, the BIA affirms without opinion, this court reviews the IJ s decision as the final agency determination. See Abdelwase v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 904, 906 (8th Cir. 2007); see also De Castro- Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375, 379 (8th Cir. 2013) (reviewing questions of law de novo, and agency s factual determinations under substantial-evidence standard). To qualify for withholding of removal, Portillo had to show there was a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened in El Salvador based on one of several protected grounds, such as membership in a particular social group, see Garcia v. Holder, 746 F.3d 869, 872 (8th Cir. 2014); and in administrative proceedings, Portillo identified two particular social groups, only one of which he mentions in his briefs.1 The IJ denied withholding of removal based on a finding that the group at issue here did not qualify as a particular social group, but alternatively the IJ found that Portillo s testimony did not establish he would be persecuted on his return to El Salvador based on his membership in such a group. Whether or not the group at issue qualifies as a particular social group an issue we need not reach we agree with the IJ that Portillo s testimony fell short of establishing his entitlement to withholding of removal on account of his membership in such a group. See Garcia, 746 F.3d at 872 (unless petitioner demonstrates evidence was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find in his favor, factual findings will not be reversed); Costanza v. Holder, 647 F.3d 749, 753 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (clear probability of future persecution is extreme concept involving infliction or threat of death, torture, or injury to one s freedom or person on account of protected ground). The petition for review is denied. ______________________________ 1 Claims not briefed are waived. See Ali v. Holder, 686 F.3d 534, 538 n.1 (8th Cir. 2012). Portillo also does not brief his asylum claim. -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.
