Ana Diaz-Posada v. Jefferson B. Sessions, No. 16-3895 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Murphy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that petitioner had failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded rear of future persecution if she returned to El Salvador. [ August 29, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3895 ___________________________ Ana Guadalupe Diaz-Posada lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: August 22, 2017 Filed: August 30, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Ana Guadalupe Diaz-Posada petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ), which denied her asylum and withholding of removal.1 To qualify for asylum, Diaz had to establish that she was unable or unwilling to return to El Salvador due to persecution, or a well-founded fear of persecution, based on her membership in the particular social group she identified. See Ngengwe v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1029, 1032 (8th Cir. 2008). Upon careful consideration, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Diaz-Posada failed to establish (1) past persecution, because she did not show that she suffered persecution at the hands of an individual the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to control, see id. (standard of review); Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2005) (persecution requires that harm be inflicted by country’s government or by individuals the government is unable or unwilling to control); or (2) a well-founded fear of future persecution, because her fear that she would be harmed upon return was not objectively reasonable, see Agha v. Holder, 743 F.3d 609, 614 (8th Cir. 2014) (well-founded fear of future persecution must be subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable). Because Diaz-Posada did not satisfy the lower burden of proof required for asylum, her withholding-of-removal claim necessarily fails. See Agha, 743 F.3d at 615. The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The IJ’s denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture is not before this panel. -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.
