794 Fed.Appx. 561 (8th Cir. 2020), 19-2344, Arenivas-Flores v. Barr

Docket Nº:19-2344
Citation:794 Fed.Appx. 561
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:Martha ARENIVAS-FLORES Petitioner v. William P. BARR Respondent
Attorney:Daniel Vondra, Vondra & Malott, Iowa City, IA, for Petitioner Carl H. McIntyre, Mona Maria Yousif, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Judge Panel:Before LOKEN, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:February 24, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Page 561

794 Fed.Appx. 561 (8th Cir. 2020)

Martha ARENIVAS-FLORES Petitioner

v.

William P. BARR Respondent

No. 19-2344

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

February 24, 2020

Submitted: February 14, 2020

Editorial Note:

UNPUBLISHED. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 8th Cir. Rule 32.1A.)

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Daniel Vondra, Vondra & Malott, Iowa City, IA, for Petitioner

Carl H. McIntyre, Mona Maria Yousif, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before LOKEN, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Mexican citizen Martha Arenivas-Flores petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the decision of an immigration judge denying her application for withholding of removal.

Upon review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal because Arenivas-Flores failed to establish that she is a member of a group that is perceived as a group in Mexican society, failed to establish a valid particular social group for purposes of withholding of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (listing protected grounds), and failed to establish that her membership in a particular social group was a central reason for the claimed persecution and fear of future persecution by Mexican criminal cartels. See Rivas v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 537, 542 (8th Cir. 2018); De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375, 381 (8th Cir. 2013). We further conclude that the BIA’s decision to deny Arenivas-Flores’s request to reinstate the grant of voluntary departure because she failed to post the required voluntary departure bond was consistent with the Attorney General’s regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3). Even if the BIA had discretion to overlook or remedy that failure, we lack jurisdiction to review that decision for abuse of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(I).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP