Hector Miranda Ortiz v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, No. 16-3779 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Substantial evidence supported the agency's decision to deny withholding of removal as petitioner failed to show that the harm he suffered was on account of a protected ground or establish that his proposed social group was distinctly perceived by Salvadoran society; petitioner's CAT claim failed as the evidence would not compel a reasonable adjudicator to conclude he was more likely than not to face torture if removed to El Salvador.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2352 ___________________________ Hector Miranda Ortiz lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ___________________________ No. 16-3779 ___________________________ Hector Miranda Ortiz lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: August 4, 2017 Filed: August 9, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated matters, Salvadoran citizen Hector Miranda Ortiz petitions for review of (1) an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge, which denied him withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) (No. 16-2352); and (2) an order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen proceedings (No. 16-3779). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision to deny withholding of removal. Ortiz did not show that the harm he suffered was on account of a protected ground or establish that his proposed social group was distinctly perceived by the Salvadoran society. See Malonga v. Holder, 621 F.3d 757, 766 (8th Cir. 2010) (applicant bears burden of providing some evidence that motivation of persecutor’s actions was, at least in part, on account of protected ground); Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 220-22 (BIA 2014) (applicant did not establish that “former members of the Mara 18 gang in El Salvador who have renounced their gang membership” constituted particular social group; defined group lacked particularity because it was too diffuse, as well as too broad and subjective); accord Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2016). We further determine that Ortiz’s CAT claim fails, as the record evidence does not compel a reasonable adjudicator to conclude that Ortiz would more likely than not -2- face torture upon removal to El Salvador. See Malonga, 546 F.3d at 554-56. Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. See Vargas v. Holder, 567 F.3d 387, 391 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for motion to reopen). The petitions for review are denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -3-
]]>
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.
