NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0634n.06 Case No. 19-3986 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Nov 06, 2020 HENRY GERARDO NAVAS-MEDINA, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) APPEALS Respondent. ) BEFORE: BOGGS, DONALD, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges. THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Henry Navas-Medina twice entered the United States illegally. And the United States twice ordered him removed. This second time around, he sought protection from removal. An Immigration Judge denied his request, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Because substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision, we deny the petition for review. I. Henry Navas-Medina is a citizen of Honduras. He illegally entered the United States in 2011. He was detained, ordered removed, and deported to Honduras. But he did not stay for long. He says that upon returning to Honduras, members of MS-13 attacked him, and he agreed to join the gang under duress. But he eventually fled to Mexico. Case No. 19-3986, Navas-Medina v. Barr In 2013, he again entered the United States illegally. He evaded detection for five years, but immigration officials apprehended him in 2018 after he got drunk and crashed his car into a light pole. Immigration officials reinstated the prior order of removal and prepared to deport him to Honduras. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). Navas-Medina now seeks protection from removal. He argues that he will face persecution in Honduras based on his membership in a particular social group consisting of the “male members of the Navas family.” Pet’r Br. 10. He testified that when he was a young child, his father killed a member of the MS-13 gang while serving as a naval police officer. He claims MS-13 retaliated by killing his father a decade later. Since then, Navas-Medina says that MS-13 has attacked him twice—first by assaulting him at work, and then by kidnapping and beating him three years later. An Immigration Judge denied Navas-Medina’s request for withholding of removal. The Judge held that his proposed social group—the men of the Navas family—was not cognizable under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”). The Judge also rejected Navas-Medina’s request for removal protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). He found that Navas-Medina was unlikely to be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Honduran government if he was sent home, so he did not qualify for relief under the Convention. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.1 Navas-Medina now petitions for review in this court. He argues that the Board erred by denying his requests for removal protection under the INA and CAT. We review the agency’s findings of fact for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. Kilic v. Barr, 965 F.3d 1 Navas-Medina previously sought a stay of removal. We denied that request because he had “not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Navas-Medina v. Barr, No. 19-3986 (6th ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals