Guadalupe Espinosa Garcia v. Matthew G. Whitaker, No. 17-3563 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam. Before Benton, Bowman, and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - immigration. Substantial evidence supports denial of withholding of removal because petitioner did not show a clear probability that her life or freedom would be threatened on account of membership in a particular social group or any other protected ground. [ December 06, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3563 ___________________________ Guadalupe Espinosa Garcia; Guadalupe Espejel Espinosa; Juan Jose Espejel Espinosa lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners v. Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: November 29, 2018 Filed: December 7, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Guadalupe Espinosa Garcia, individually and on behalf of her two minor children, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s denial of withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Upon review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal because Espinosa Garcia did not show a clear probability that her life or freedom would be threatened on account of membership in a particular social group, or any other protected ground should she be returned to Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (listing protected grounds); De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375, 379 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing standard of review). We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of Espinosa Garcia’s CAT claim. See Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 992 (8th Cir. 2004) (individual seeking CAT protection must demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to home country). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-