United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 20-2106 ROBSON XAVIER GOMES, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND,* Respondent. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS Before Lynch and Barron, Circuit Judges, Burroughs,** District Judge. SangYeob Kim, with whom Gilles Bissonnette, American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Anna R. Welch, Suzannah Dowling, Blake McCartney, and Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic University of Maine School of Law were on brief, for petitioner. Jane T. Schaffner, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, with whom Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Papu Sandhu, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, were on brief, for respondent. * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has been substituted for Acting Attorney General Robert Montague Wilkinson. ** Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation. November 3, 2021 BURROUGHS, District Judge. An Immigration Judge ("IJ") denied Petitioner Robson Xavier Gomes' applications for asylum, withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture ("CAT"), and voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") then dismissed his appeal. Now, Mr. Gomes petitions for review of the BIA's decision on his asylum and withholding of removal claims.1 For the reasons below, we dismiss one of the claims in the petition because we lack jurisdiction over it and deny the others. I. Background A. Legal Framework for Asylum and Withholding of Removal Our case law is clear that: [t]o be eligible for asylum, the applicant must show that []he is unwilling or unable to return to h[is] country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group ["PSG"], or political opinion. The applicant may make this showing by establishing that []he suffered past persecution, which creates a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Establishing past persecution ordinarily requires an applicant to show that []he experienced more than mere discomfiture, unpleasantness, 1Mr. Gomes does not appeal to this court the BIA's determination that the IJ correctly concluded that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. Additionally, although he initially sought our review of the BIA's decision on his CAT claim, he abandoned that claim on September 20, 2021 pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). - 3 - harassment, or unfair treatment. Absent evidence of past persecution, the well-founded fear requirement may be satisfied with evidence of a reasonable likelihood of future persecution, so long as the fear is genuine and objectively reasonable. To meet the objectively reasonable requirement, the applicant must produce credible, direct, and specific evidence supporting a fear of individualized persecution in the future. Additionally, the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that the claimed persecution was or will be on account of a statutorily protected ground -- the nexus requirement. That requirement is met if the applicant can prove that a statutorily …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals