USCA11 Case: 22-10579 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2022 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-10579 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ISIDRO GINEZ TECPIL, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A206-805-244 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-10579 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2022 Page: 2 of 7 2 Opinion of the Court 22-10579 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 nega- tive 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 re- moval or relief under the United Nations Convention Against Tor- ture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Pun- ishment (“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, 1 We have jurisdiction to review the IJ’s review of the asylum officer’s nega- tive reasonable fear determination because it was issued within the context of a reinstated order of removal, which is viewed as a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); see Avila v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 560 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir. 2009) (“An order of reinstatement is a final order of removal under § 1252(a)(1).”). USCA11 Case: 22-10579 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2022 Page: 3 of 7 22-10579 Opinion of the Court 3 “[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 intimi- dation, and that [m]ere harassment does not amount to persecu- tion.” 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. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals