Case: 17-11361 Date Filed: 03/12/2018 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-11361 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-621-095 JUNIOR ALFREDO MEDINA ACOSTA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (March 12, 2018) Before JULIE CARNES, FAY and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-11361 Date Filed: 03/12/2018 Page: 2 of 9 Junior Alfredo Medina Acosta petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings based on new evidence. We deny his petition. I. BACKGROUND Acosta, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States without inspection in January 2014. Border patrol agents arrested him upon entry. In his initial interview, Acosta expressed no fear of return. However, in his credible fear interview, Acosta stated that he had left Honduras because he was receiving death threats from a man named Jose Antonio Sarmiento, who blamed Acosta’s father for the death of his nephew and who had killed Acosta’s grandfather, had his cousin killed, and had shot at Acosta. In February 2014, the Department of Homeland Security issued Acosta a notice to appear, which alleged that he was removable under Immigration Nationality Act (“INA”) § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(l), for being an alien who, at the time of admission, did not possess a valid entry document. Acosta conceded removability as charged. In November 2014, Acosta filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to the 2 Case: 17-11361 Date Filed: 03/12/2018 Page: 3 of 9 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), based on membership in a particular social group. 1 After considering testimony and evidence in a hearing on Acosta’s application for withholding of removal, 2 the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied relief. Acosta appealed to the BIA, which dismissed his appeal in August 2016. Assuming that Acosta was credible, the BIA agreed with the IJ that Acosta had not established eligibility for asylum and that Acosta had failed to demonstrate past persecution on account of a protected ground because he did not show that the harm he suffered was on account of his membership in a particular social group. Rather, the BIA found that the harm, which arose from a land dispute and Sarmiento’s purported desire to retaliate for the death of a relative, was the result of criminal activity. The BIA also determined that criminal activity was not enough to show persecution on account of a protected ground. The BIA agreed with the IJ’s conclusion that Acosta had failed to meet his burden to show that it would be unreasonable for him to relocate within Honduras. The BIA found that none of Acosta’s male family members had been harmed for at least two years and that he had failed to show that the threat of future harm was 1 Acosta also alleged persecution based on political opinion, but he later ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals