Case ID: f-appx_680/html/0504-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Isaias ZEPEDA, also known as Jose Isias Zepeda, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
    No. 16-2033
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 7, 2017
    Filed: March 14, 2017
    Joseph Lopez Wilson, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner
    Kathryn Deangelis, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Carl H. McIntyre, Siu P, Wong, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC; OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before COLLOTON, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Jefferson B. Sessions, III has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).
    
   PER CURIAM.

Jose Zepeda, a citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) order denying asylum and withholding of removal. This court reviews the BIA’s decision as the final agency action, and to the extent the BIA adopted the IJ’s findings or reasoning, as it did here, this' court also reviews the IJ’s decision. See Diaz-Perez v. Holder, 750 F.3d 961, 963-64 (8th Cir. 2014) (IJ’s finding of facts are reviewed under deferential substantial evidence standard, and findings must be treated as conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach contrary conclusion). To establish eligibility for asylum, Mr. Zepeda had to show that he is unwilling or unable to return to El Salvador because of persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of his membership in the particular social group he identified. See Flores v. Holder, 699 F.3d 998, 1002-03 (8th Cir. 2012). We find that no reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that Mr. Zepeda met his burden of proving his entitlement to asylum; and thus that his claim for withholding of removal necessarily failed as well, see Sow v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 953, 956 (8th Cir. 2008) (alien who fails to meet standard for asylum cannot meet more rigorous standard for establish-mg eligibility for withholding of removal). The petition for review is denied.