Plaza-Ramirez v. Sessions
| Decision Date | 07 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 14-2828,14-2828 |
| Citation | 908 F.3d 282 |
| Parties | Raul PLAZA-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Royal F. Berg, Attorney, LAW OFFICE OF ROYAL F. BERG, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
Kevin J. Conway, Attorney, Oil OIL, Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Division, Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before Manion, Hamilton, and Brennan, Circuit Judges.
Raul Plaza-Ramirez is a citizen of Mexico. He petitions for judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his application for withholding of removal based on a threat of persecution if he were to return to Mexico. The immigration judge denied relief, finding no nexus between Plaza-Ramirez’s membership in a "particular social group" and the persecution he described. The Board affirmed. We deny the petition because substantial evidence supports the judge’s and the Board’s decisions.
In the summer of 2001, Raul Plaza-Ramirez entered the United States from Mexico without inspection or admission. He lived and worked in Naperville, Illinois for nearly a decade. In 2010, he was traveling in upstate New York and was apprehended by Border Patrol agents. The government began the process of removing him from the United States. He conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Plaza-Ramirez based his persecution claim on an attack he suffered in 1999. He was at a dance club in his home town in central Mexico when he was followed into the restroom by members of a gang called Los Negros. Mistakenly thinking he was affiliated with his cousin’s rival gang, they viciously beat him with a metal pipe. Afterwards, they threatened him several times, but they did not physically attack him again. He fled the country nine months later. Afraid of retaliation, he never filed any police reports.
To support his claim for withholding of removal, Plaza-Ramirez argued that he was targeted because he is a member of a particular social group: his own family. Essentially, he contends Los Negros attacked him solely because he is kin to his gang-affiliated cousin. In general, to qualify as a refugee under United States law, a person must be unable or unwilling to return to his own country "because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
Plaza-Ramirez argued that returning to Mexico continued to be dangerous for him. He asserted that his girlfriend’s sister was kidnapped for ransom in his home town in 2010 by a member of Los Negros. (Police rescued her before she was physically injured.)
The immigration judge denied relief. The asylum claim was untimely because Plaza-Ramirez did not apply until over a decade after his first year of entry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). The judge rejected the withholding claim as well, ruling that Plaza-Ramirez had failed to show that the 1999 attack occurred because of his family membership, and that regardless, the attack did not rise to the level of persecution. The judge also denied protection under the Convention Against Torture without additional discussion.
Plaza-Ramirez appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals on the sole basis of withholding; he conceded that his asylum claim was time-barred, and he made no argument supporting his Convention Against Torture claim. The Board upheld the judge’s ruling, finding that Plaza-Ramirez had failed to show sufficient persecution and failed to show any nexus between the 1999 attack and his membership in a particular social group.1
Where the Board affirms the immigration judge’s decision, adopts its reasoning, and supplements with its own, we review both decisions. Halim v. Holder , 755 F.3d 506, 511 (7th Cir. 2014). We review legal determinations de novo and findings of fact for substantial evidence.
Orellana-Arias v. Sessions , 865 F.3d 476, 484 (7th Cir. 2017).
Plaza-Ramirez seeks review of the Board’s rejection of his claim for withholding of removal. To be eligible for withholding of removal, he needed to show (1) membership in a particular social group and (2) a connection between that group and the persecution alleged. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16 ; Tsegmed v. Sessions , 859 F.3d 480, 484 (7th Cir. 2017). A person’s family can qualify as a "particular social group" for purposes of asylum and withholding of removal. W.G.A. v. Sessions , 900 F.3d 957, 965 (7th Cir. 2018) (). Both the immigration judge and the Board denied relief on the second requirement, however. Plaza-Ramirez did not convince them that the gang attacked him in 1999 because of his membership in any particular social group.
Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s conclusion that no nexus existed between the attack and Plaza-Ramirez’s family membership. Plaza-Ramirez admitted that there were no threats against any of his other family members. He also admitted he was attacked because he was mistakenly associated with a rival gang. The absence of evidence of threats to or attacks on other family members distinguishes this case from cases like W.G.A. , where the petitioner offered extensive evidence of the gang’s threats to other family members and otherwise linked the gang’s persecution to his family. 900 F.3d at 966. In this case, the immigration judge also found that the 2010 kidnapping of Plaza-Ramirez’s girlfriend’s sister related only to the general violence in Mexico. Under United States statutes for asylum and withholding of removal, generalized violence simply does not justify relief. See Lozano–Zuniga v. Lynch , 832 F.3d 822, 828 (7th Cir. 2016).
Plaza-Ramirez also appeals his asylum and Convention Against Torture claims, but he waived these arguments by failing to raise them before the Board. Ghani v. Holder , 557 F.3d 836, 839 (7th Cir. 2009). He explicitly conceded to the Board that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meraz-Saucedo v. Rosen
...That fact is not dispositive, but it supports the conclusion that the cartel is not persecuting the family. See Plaza-Ramirez v. Sessions , 908 F.3d 282, 286 (7th Cir. 2018) ; Orellana-Arias v. Sessions , 865 F.3d 476, 488 (7th Cir. 2017) (holding no future persecution where El Salvador gan......
-
Karingithi v. Whitaker
...has raised her cancellation claim in a motion to reconsider to the BIA, and she must await its determination. See Plaza-Ramirez v. Sessions , 908 F.3d 282, 286 (7th Cir. 2018) (refusing to consider cancellation claim pending before BIA that had not been raised in initial administrative proc......
-
Calle-Crespo v. Barr
...instance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); see also, e.g., Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2019); Plaza-Ramirez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 282, 286 (7th Cir. 2018). Due Process Finally, to the extent that Calle-Crespo argues that the IJ violated his Due Process rights by denying h......
-
United States v. Brixen
...dealer. Id. at 234. Accordingly, the police officers then frisked and detained him and began searching his vehicle. Id. The court held:908 F.3d 282Nothing in the record supports Lawing’s claim that his cell phone was the subject of a search. The police did not attempt to retrieve any inform......