Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 18-1538 OSCAR NEFTALI CHAVEZ-MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS Before Lynch and Lipez, Circuit Judges, and Katzmann, Judge. Lidia M. Sanchez, on brief for petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Jeffrey R. Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, and Lance L. Jolley, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, on brief for respondent. January 10, 2019 Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker has been substituted for former Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions, III as the respondent. Of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. KATZMANN, Judge. Petitioner Oscar Neftali Chavez-Mendez (“Chavez-Mendez”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a May 7, 2018 final order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum under section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1158. In his application, Chavez-Mendez alleged fear of persecution from members of a neighboring village based on his membership in a particular social group comprised of residents of his hometown. In its decision, the BIA stated: The respondent [Chavez-Mendez] credibly testified to the following. The respondent lived with his parents in a village of about 200 people in Guatemala. The village was downhill from another village, and when villagers from the respondent’s town would travel uphill to cultivate the land, various disputes broke out between the residents of both towns over access to the land and water. During the conflicts, villagers were armed with sticks and machetes. The respondent’s father participated in the conflict, and the opposing villagers once captured and threatened to kill the respondent’s uncle. The respondent never personally witnessed any of the altercations nor was he involved in any of the disputes, and the respondent and his siblings were never harmed as a result of these conflicts. The police or soldiers sometimes came to the village to restore the peace when the disputes broke out. In denying Chavez-Mendez’s application, the BIA upheld the immigration judge’s conclusion that he failed “to carry his burden of proof to establish that he experienced past harm sufficiently severe to qualify as persecution,” and failed “to - 2 - carry his burden to establish a nexus between the harm that he fears and his identified particular social group.” We agree. Judicial review of the BIA’s denial of asylum is deferential. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We examine fact-bound challenges only to ensure that the BIA’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record as a whole. See Makhoul v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 75, 79 (1st Cir. 2004). The denial of asylum must be affirmed unless the administrative record “unequivocally indicates error.” Id. at 79. “We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo, although ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals