United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3644 ___________________________ Jorge Enrique Avila-Chavarria lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: December 15, 2020 Filed: February 2, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jorge Enrique Avila-Chavarria, a native and citizen of Costa Rica, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen in which he sought, for the first time, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA concluded that he failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief. See I.N.S. v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988) (noting that the BIA may deny reopening if the movant fails to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought, if the movant fails to introduce previously unavailable, material evidence, or if the BIA determines that, even if those requirements were met, the movant would not be entitled to the discretionary grant of relief sought). We review the BIA’s denial of Avila-Chavarria’s motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion and will grant the petition only if the decision was without rational explanation, departed from established policies, invidiously discriminated against a particular race or group, or if the agency failed to consider all factors presented or distorted important aspects of the claim. See Shire v. Barr, 967 F.3d 722, 725-26 (8th Cir. 2020). For the following reasons, we conclude Avila-Chavarria did not meet his “heavy burden” of demonstrating reopening was warranted. See Sharif v. Barr, 965 F.3d 612, 618 (8th Cir. 2020) (discussing burden). Avila-Chavarria does not directly challenge the merits of the BIA’s conclusions on asylum and withholding of removal. Instead, he argues that the BIA engaged in improper fact-finding and erred in not remanding his case for further proceedings. He argues this was error because the cognizability of his particular social group—which was not clearly identified in either his motion or appellate brief—is a “mixed question of law and fact” for the immigration judge to decide. On our reading of the agency’s decision, however, it appears the BIA assumed that Avila- Chavarria belonged to a particular social group characterized by his Catholicism or membership in his former church yet ultimately concluded that he failed to demonstrate the requisite nexus between his membership in that group and an objective fear of persecution. Either way, it is well settled in this circuit that whether a group constitutes a particular social group is a question of law, not fact, that is within the BIA’s purview to decide. See Ngugi v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 1132, 1137 (8th Cir. 2016); Gaitan v. Holder, 671 F.3d 678, 680 (8th Cir. 2012). And here, the BIA rationally explained that Avila-Chavarria failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. The materials he submitted did not -2- ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals