NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0477n.06 No. 20-4183 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DOMINGO JIMENEZ-LORENZO, ) FILED ) Oct 25, 2021 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk Petitioner, ) ) v. ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM ) THE UNITED STATES BOARD OF MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) IMMIGRATION APPEALS ) ) Respondent. ) ) Before: DAUGHTREY, COLE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges. MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge. Domingo Jimenez-Lorenzo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his request for asylum and withholding of removal. He argues that he offered sufficient evidence both of past persecution and of fear of future persecution to justify a grant of relief. As did the immigration judge and the BIA, we hold that, even if Jimenez-Lorenzo could establish that he has been or will be persecuted in Guatemala, he has not shown that such persecution was based upon a protected ground. We thus deny the petition for review. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND As an unaccompanied fifteen-year-old, Jimenez-Lorenzo traveled from Guatemala to enter the United States without inspection in August 2014. He then filed a timely application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) Case No. 20-4183, Jimenez-Lorenzo v. Garland in April 2015. Jimenez-Lorenzo subsequently conceded removability after admitting that he entered the country without inspection. At a later evidentiary hearing before an immigration judge, Jimenez-Lorenzo claimed that he had suffered past persecution and feared future persecution both because of his religion and because of his membership in a particular social group, which he defined as indigenous Guatemalan youth church members. In support of his claim, Jimenez-Lorenzo recounted how, in June 2014, he was walking to his Seventh-Day Adventist church in his Guatemalan hometown when four members of the 18th Street Gang approached him and tried to convince him to join the group. Despite the gang members’ assertion that he would “have a bunch of good things” if he joined them, Jimenez-Lorenzo declined their offer because he “assume[d] that these individuals w[ould] ask [him] or force [him] to steal if [he] bec[a]me part of the group, or even more, maybe kidnap someone.” In response, the gang members told Jimenez-Lorenzo, “[I]f we ever see you again and you are refusing to join us, we have to hit you.” Two weeks later, Jimenez-Lorenzo was walking to a neighborhood convenience store when three of the gang members who had previously accosted him—together with three other gang members—confronted him, pushed him to the ground, and threatened more severe actions if he still refused to join the gang the next time they saw him. Even though his attackers offered no reason for their actions other than their desire to increase gang membership, Jimenez-Lorenzo felt that the confrontation was precipitated by the gang’s dislike of his church attendance. As he testified, “They want me to join them. They don’t like that I am doing good things at …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals