Tecpil v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

• Decision Date: 23 December 2022
• Docket Number: 22-10579
• Parties: ISIDRO GINEZ TECPIL, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

ISIDRO GINEZ TECPIL, Petitioner,
v.
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

No. 22-10579

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

December 23, 2022

DO NOT PUBLISH

Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A206-805-244

1

Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

Isidro Ginez Tecpil petitions for review of the immigration judge's ("IJ's") decision concurring with the asylum officer's negative reasonable fear determination, which was issued within the context of a reinstated order of removal and viewed as a final order of removal from the United States. On appeal, Tecpil argues that the IJ erred by affirming the asylum officer's finding that he had not established a reasonable fear of either future persecution or torture if he was removed to Mexico, as required for withholding of removal or relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("CAT"), respectively. After thorough review, we deny the petition for review.^[1]

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), a noncitizen shall not be removed to a country if his life or freedom would be threatened in such country on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). For withholding-of-removal claims,

2

"[t]he alien bears the burden of demonstrating that it is more likely than not [he] will be persecuted or tortured upon being returned to h[is] country." Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1232 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted). The burden of proof is upon the noncitizen to show his eligibility for withholding of removal under the INA. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b).

An alien may satisfy his burden of proof for withholding of removal by establishing past persecution on a protected ground. Rodriguez v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 735 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir. 2013). We've indicated that "persecution is an extreme concept, requiring more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation, and that [m]ere harassment does not amount to persecution." Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231 (quotations omitted); see also Djonda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168, 1174 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that a minor beating does not constitute persecution); Zheng v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 451 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2006) (finding that state officials watching and occasionally searching an...