United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3378 ___________________________ Francisco de la Rosa Garcia lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: October 18, 2019 Filed: December 10, 2019 ____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. Francisco de la Rosa Garcia (de la Rosa) petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for withholding of removal pursuant to § 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petition. I. De la Rosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in or about 1999. On July 21, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against de la Rosa, charging him as removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (being present in the United States without being admitted or paroled). De la Rosa conceded that he was removable as charged, but he filed an application for relief from removal in the form of, inter alia, withholding of removal under § 1231(b)(3) (restriction on removal to a country where alien’s life or freedom would be threatened).1 In seeking relief from removal, de la Rosa claimed that he feared persecution in Mexico due to his membership in a particular social group consisting of “members of the de la Rosa family.” As support, de la Rosa testified that his uncle had been kidnapped and extorted in 2016; that, until about 2015, his sister was receiving phone calls from unknown individuals falsely claiming to have kidnapped de la Rosa and seeking payment in exchange for his release; and that his father’s cousin was killed in 2016 when he was opening his business because he had refused to submit to extortionate demands. De la Rosa explained that, “if you have a business [in Mexico, criminals] will ask you for money every month.” De la Rosa noted that his family owns a small business in Mexico. Further, de la Rosa testified that, while his siblings 1 De la Rosa also applied for and was denied asylum, cancellation of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The only issue identified by de la Rosa before this Court is the denial of his application for withholding of removal pursuant to § 1231(b)(3), and he does not submit argument with respect to the denial of his applications for asylum, cancellation of removal, or protection under the CAT. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (holding that claims that are not meaningfully argued in the opening brief are waived). -2- continue to live in Mexico, they have not been targeted because “they only make enough [money] to survive.” The IJ denied de la Rosa’s application for withholding of removal pursuant to § 1231(b)(3). ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals