United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-2218 ___________________________ Jose Jorge Lopez-Flores Petitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States Respondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: April 12, 2021 Filed: August 27, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before KELLY, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) to Jose Jorge Lopez-Flores. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. Lopez-Flores challenges the Board’s order denying asylum and withholding of removal. 1 We deny his petition for review. We review the Board’s order as the final agency action, and we consider the IJ’s findings and reasoning because the Board expressly adopted them. See Degbe v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 651, 655 (8th Cir. 2018). “We will uphold the denial of asylum and withholding of removal if the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Prieto-Pineda v. Barr, 960 F.3d 516, 519 (8th Cir. 2020). Under this standard, we “will uphold the denial of relief unless the alien demonstrates that the evidence [i]s so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Uzodinma v. Barr, 951 F.3d 960, 964 (8th Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Osonowo v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 922, 927 (8th Cir. 2008)). To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant must show he is a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). A refugee is “an alien who is unwilling or unable to return to his or her country of nationality ‘because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” Ixtlilco-Morales v. Keisler, 507 F.3d 651, 654 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). “We have explained that in order to meet the requirements for persecution, the harm must be ‘inflicted either by the government of a country or by persons or an organization that the government was unable or unwilling to control.’” Prieto-Pineda, 960 F.3d at 520 (quoting Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2005)). Lopez-Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador, illegally entered the United States in 2013. He was charged with being removable, conceded the charge, and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT. Lopez-Flores said he left El Salvador after he refused gang members’ single attempt to recruit him 1 Lopez-Flores does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that he waived his CAT-protection claim. -2- to join their gang. He claimed those gang members threatened to harm him and his family if he did not join. Further, Lopez-Flores’s sisters stated that gang members sexually assaulted and harassed them after Lopez-Flores left El Salvador. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s findings that Lopez-Flores (1) did not suffer harm amounting to persecution; (2) did not demonstrate the government was unwilling or unable to control …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals