OSCAR GUZMAN-GARCIA v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States
No. 20-1966
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
ARGUED FEBRUARY 12, 2021 — DECIDED MAY 3, 2021
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. No. A205-287-030.
Before RIPPLE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.
Guzman-Garcia separately contests the Board‘s denial of his petition for withholding of removal. The Board held that Guzman-Garcia had not established any of the requisite elements and affirmed the IJ‘s decision. Because substantial evidence supports the Board‘s denial of Guzman-Garcia‘s petition for withholding of removal, we deny his petition for review.
I.
A.
Guzman-Garcia, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States illegally in September 2006 because he feared gang violence in Mexico. In January 1999, Guzman-Garcia witnessed the murder of his older brother, Oton. The brothers were walking in the city of Acapulco, Guerrero, Mexico when men asking for money accosted them. Guzman-Garcia testified that he knew that they were gang members from their speech, clothes, and tattoos. One of the men began beating Oton when he denied their request and another shouted “kill him, kill him.” When Guzman-Garcia ran, the men started shooting at him. He was able to escape but heard the men yelling that they would find and kill him eventually.
Oton passed away shortly after the attack. Guzman-Garcia admitted that he was unsure why the men targeted his brother and that he did not recognize the men or gang that attacked them. Police told Guzman-Garcia‘s father not to report Oton‘s murder to avoid retribution. Guzman-Garcia also testified that in the days following Oton‘s death while he was still in Acapulco, friends told him that “some guys were asking about me and that they were going to look for me until they found me, because we had a problem pending.” Roughly one year later, two men dressed similar to those who murdered Oton shot through the walls of Guzman-Garcia‘s family home in Iliantenco. The men did not identify themselves. Additionally, at some unspecified time, two unknown men went through the neighborhood asking for the Guzman family, but Guzman-Garcia did not know whether they were the people who murdered Oton.
Guzman-Garcia resided in Mexico for approximately five years after his brother‘s murder. Following the shooting at his family‘s home, however, he moved fifteen hours away to Puebla, where he lived from November 2001 until August 2003. He later resided in Mexico City between August 2003 and September 2006, when he entered the United States. During this time, he experienced no gang interaction. Further, since Guzman-Garcia relocated to the United States, neither he nor his family have received any threats. Guzman-Garcia testified, however, that he did not feel safe. He claimed that “over and over, people from Iliantenco, Guerrero, that knew me would give me information that some people wanted to kill me because I was the main witness to my brother‘s death.” Guzman-Garcia testified that he entered the United States to escape from his life of fear.
On October 10, 2013, the Department of Homeland Security charged Guzman-Garcia with removability as an alien present without being admitted and served him a notice to appear. Guzman-Garcia admitted his removability but filed applications for asylum and withholding of removal in 2014.
B.
The IJ denied asylum on two independent bases. She held that the application was untimely and that even if it was not, she would exercise her discretion to deny it. The IJ also denied withholding of removal.
The Board affirmed the IJ‘s decision on both applications. It upheld the IJ‘s determination that Guzman-Garcia‘s asylum application was untimely. It also affirmed the IJ‘s denial of withholding of removal because it determined that Guzman-Garcia had failed to establish the three required elements. Guzman-Garcia now petitions for review of the Board‘s decision.
II.
“Where, as here, the BIA‘s decision adopts and affirms the IJ‘s conclusion as well as provid[es] its own analysis, we review both decisions.” Bathula v. Holder, 723 F.3d 889, 897 (7th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation omitted). We review legal questions de novo and findings of fact for substantial evidence. Meraz-Saucedo v. Rosen, 986 F.3d 676, 684 (7th Cir. 2021). Under the substantial-evidence standard, we reverse factual findings by the Board and IJ only if “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude the contrary.”
A.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act (the “Act“) requires petitioners to file asylum applications within one year of entry, with certain narrow exceptions.
B.
We likewise deny his petition for review of the Board‘s denial of his application for withholding of removal. A successful application requires the petitioner to show that his “life or freedom would be threatened in that country [of removal] because of the alien‘s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
We “review the Board‘s findings under the substantial evidence standard,” which requires us to assess whether the Board‘s denial of Guzman-Garcia‘s application “is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole. ...” N.L.A. v. Holder, 744 F.3d 425, 430 (7th Cir. 2014). Under this “extremely deferential” standard, Molina-Avila v. Sessions, 907 F.3d 977, 982 (7th Cir. 2018), we will “reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Abdoulaye v. Holder, 721 F.3d 485, 490 (7th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation omitted).
Guzman-Garcia argues that the Board erred in holding that the IJ correctly decided that Guzman-Garcia had not established any of the elements necessary for withholding of removal. As to the first element, he contends that we have rejected the legal standard the IJ applied when evaluating whether he demonstrated membership in a protected group. On the risk-of-harm element, he suggests that the IJ overlooked substantial evidence showing that he would be persecuted if he returned to Mexico. Lastly, he argues that the IJ did not make a finding on the nexus element. We need not address Guzman-Garcia‘s arguments as to the first and third elements because he has failed to establish the second element.
The record does not show that Guzman-Garcia is likely to suffer persecution due to his experience as a witness to an incident of gang violence twenty years ago—much less that there is no substantial evidence to support the IJ‘s determination to that effect. Crediting Guzman-Garcia‘s testimony, gang members threatened him at the time of his brother‘s murder, and while he was in Mexico, acquaintances told him “over and over” that people were looking for him. Several months after the murder, unknown men fired on his family‘s home. On one occasion, he heard that people were looking for his family, but he did not know if these people were gang affiliated.
Despite his fears and the reported threats, Guzman-Garcia lived in two different cities in Mexico for roughly five years following his brother‘s murder, all without incident. It is now almost twenty years since he witnessed the crime, and he has been out of the country for nearly fourteen of those years. There is no evidence that his family has been threatened since he left Mexico or that he has heard of people looking for him since his departure or threatening him. On these facts, the Board‘s conclusion that he would not suffer future harm upon return to Mexico was supported by substantial evidence.1
Conclusion
Because Guzman-Garcia has not overcome the dispositive holdings informing the Board‘s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal, we deny the petition for review.