United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-1734 ___________________________ Jaime Armando Oxlaj Petitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States of America Respondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: March 16, 2023 Filed: May 3, 2023 ____________ Before COLLOTON, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ GRUENDER, Circuit Judge. Jaime Armando Oxlaj petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal. Oxlaj is an auto mechanic from Guatemala. He testified that in February 2013 he took the bus to buy some tools. On the bus ride home, three men robbed him and the other passengers on the bus. He did not see the faces of two of the robbers. One of the men pressed a knife against Oxlaj’s right side and took one of his cellphones and his wallet (containing his identification card). The man had a tattoo that Oxlaj understood to be identified with a criminal gang. Oxlaj filed a police report and gave the police the number for the cellphone he still had. The next day, someone called Oxlaj threatening to kill him for going to the police, so Oxlaj got a new phone number. In August, someone again called him, threatening to kill him unless he paid money. Two days later, three men tried to kidnap him. Oxlaj reported the attempted kidnapping to the police. Fearing these threats, he came to the United States in November. While in the United States, Oxlaj learned that a letter was left outside his grandparents’ house, where Oxlaj had lived in Guatemala, demanding money and threatening him as a consequence for filing a police report. In 2014, the Attorney General initiated removal proceedings against Oxlaj. He then applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. To the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), Oxlaj argued that he was persecuted for his “anti-gang” political opinion and for his membership in the particular social group of witnesses who cooperate with law enforcement. The IJ denied his application, concluding that Oxlaj did not show that his proposed social group is cognizable and did not demonstrate a connection between his persecution and his imputed political opinion or membership in his proposed social group. Oxlaj appealed to the BIA, which adopted the IJ’s decision. The BIA agreed with the IJ’s findings that Oxlaj’s proposed social group is not cognizable and that he has not established the requisite connection. Oxlaj appeals the BIA’s decision, arguing that the BIA erred in concluding that his proposed social group lacks particularity and social distinction and that the BIA’s decision is unclear so we must remand for clarification. We review the denial of an application for asylum and withholding of removal for substantial evidence, see Silvestre-Giron v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1114, 1117 (8th Cir. 2020); Falaja v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 889, 894 (8th Cir. 2005), but we review questions of law de novo, Ngugi v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 1132, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals