Cambara-Cambara v. Lynch, No. 15-1916 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioners, brothers and natives of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Petitioners concede that they filed their application more than a year after they arrived in the United States, but they contend that the attack on their father in 2008 constituted changed circumstances. The court concluded that this contention is not a constitutional claim and does not raise a question of law. Rather, this contention amounts to a quarrel with the BIA's discretionary factual determination and thus the court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that the asylum claims are time-barred. Petitioners also argue that their credible evidence of extortionate demands and violent attacks by criminal gangs against members of their family for more than twenty years established that they suffered past persecution and have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of their membership in a particular social group. The court concluded, however, that substantial evidence supports a finding that petitioners' family is no different from any other Guatemalan family that has experienced gang violence and there is no evidence that petitioners' mistreatment is associated with their membership in a social group. Finally, the court denied CAT relief and concluded that substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that the Maras 18 gang in Guatemala was not acting with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Chief Judge Riley and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - immigration. As to untimely asylum application, the court does not have jurisdiction to review a determination that an application for asylum as untimely or qualifies for changed circumstances, as petitioners did not make constitutional claim or raise a question of law. On withholding of removal claim, brothers did not show criminal gangs targeted members of their family because of family relationships as opposed to being prosperous businessmen who are targets for extortionate demands. Substantial evidence supports that gangs did not act with consent or acquiescence of a public official to support CAT relief. Petitions for review are denied.
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.