Melvin Reyes-Cardona v. Eric Holder, Jr.
565 F. App'x 366
6th Cir.
2014
Check Treatment
Docket

Melvin REYES-CARDONA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-3828.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 29, 2014.

366

provision of Kentucky law (or any provision of any document from the Bank) that would establish thаt a company cannot authorize a nonmember to have access to its accounts.

WPP also argues that the district court erred by overruling its objections to the admission of Drewry‘s affidavit. However, WPP offers no citations to any legal authority in support of its position. “[I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived. It is not sufficient for a party to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to ... put flesh on its bones.” . Accordingly, we decline to address this issue.

V.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

BEFORE: MERRITT, COOK, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Melvin Reyes-Cardona, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions through counsel for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal ‍​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‍from a decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Reyes-Cardona was born in Guatemala in 1975. He entered the United States in 1998 without authorization and has remained here since that time. He applied for the above relief, stating that he feared persecution if he returned to Guatemala. He stated that a friend of his had killed a man, and the friend had later been killed by members of the deceased man‘s family in revenge. These same people were allegedly looking for Reyes-Cardona, believing that he may have been involved in the оriginal crime. After a hearing, at which Reyes-Cardona was the sole witness, the IJ denied relief. The IJ found that Reyes-Cardona was not credible, thаt he was not a member of a protected social group, that he had established only a personal dispute between him and the murdered man‘s family, and that he had not shown he would be tortured in Guatemala. The BIA agreed with each of these findings and dismissed the appeal. Reyes-Cardona reasserts his arguments before this court.

Initially, Reyes-Cardona challenges the finding that his testimony was not credible. A credibility finding is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard, and will be reversed only if the record compels a contrary finding. . When evaluating credibility, an IJ should be sensitivе to misunderstandings caused by language barriers, the use of translators, and cultural differences. See . Here, the IJ placed too much weight on the fact that witnesses described Reyes-Cardona and his friends as being “in” a bar that had only outdoor seating and on the possible contradiсtion regarding when Reyes-Cardona had last spoken to his friend Nerrie, especially as the ‍​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‍IJ failed to address Reyes-Cardona‘s explаnation for the inconsistency. See . However, the IJ correctly noted that Reyes-Cardona testified that he did not know if a police report was made concerning the killing of his friend, and that this was in direct contrast to his written statement saying that the killing had been reported but not solvеd. Moreover, the credibility finding was also based on the absence of corroborating evidence that Reyes-Cardona should have suрplied. See . Based on the determination that Reyes-Cardona significantly lacked credibility, the IJ understandably required substantial corroborаtion. Even so, the IJ did not explain why particular corroborating evidence would be expected, and some of the missing corroboration identified by the IJ—namely the death certificate of a man whose name Reyes-Cardona did not know—could not reasonably be expected. The IJ correctly pointed out that a statement from his father failed to corroborate the fact that Reyes-Cardonа‘s friend had been killed by the original victim‘s family though admittedly the statement was too short to contain all relevant information. Still the record cоntains support for some of the bases of the adverse credibility finding and thus does not compel a different conclusion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (explаining that inconsistencies relevant to an adverse credibility finding need not “go[] to the heart of the applicant‘s claim“).

Even if all of Reyеs-Cardona‘s testimony were accepted, however, he still failed to establish eligibility for withholding or protection under the CAT. To be eligible for withholding, Reyes-Cardona had to establish a clear probability of persecution on account of a protected ground. . This requirеs showing that it is more likely than ‍​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‍not that the applicant will be persecuted. . A denial of withholding relief will be upheld unless it is manifestly contrary to law. Bеfore the IJ, Reyes-Cardona stated that he was a member of a social group of victims of crime, which the IJ properly rejectеd. Before this court, Reyes-Cardona claims that he is a member of a group of witnesses to a public crime. We lack jurisdiction to cоnsider this alleged social group because Reyes-Cardona failed to raise this argument before the IJ or the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); . As to whether victims of crime are a social group, the IJ properly concluded that Reyes-Cardona established only a personal dispute betwеen himself and the family of his friend‘s victim, which is not a protected ground. See .

Reyes-Cardona also argues that the IJ rejected another рroposed social group he identified, that of potential victims of crimes targeted on account of their perceived wеalth as former inhabitants of the United States. This is also not a protected ground. See ; (per curiam). Finally, Reyes-Cardona argues that this cоurt has recently changed ‍​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‍the definition of what constitutes a recognizable social group, citing . However, that case does not purport to enunciate a change in the law, but instead restates earlier holdings that a social group is one perceived as suсh by the society, and not necessarily visually recognizable. Nothing in that case establishes that Reyes-Cardona is either a victim of crime оr a target of persecution based on the non-protected ground of having lived in the United States.

In order to be eligible for proteсtion under the CAT, Reyes-Cardona was required to show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured by the government of Guatemala or with its acquiescence. . Again, a denial of protection under the CAT will be upheld unless manifestly contrary to law. . In considering the torture risk to an applicant, the IJ should consider any evidence of ‍​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‍past torture, and whether the applicant would be tortured in all areas of the сountry. . In this case, the IJ properly found that Reyes-Cardona had submitted no evidence of past torture, or of a likelihood of future torturе committed or acquiesced to by the Guatemalan government anywhere in the country.

For all of the above reasons, the petition for review is denied.

Read the detailed case summary