Case ID: f-appx_678/html/0461-01.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

Dolores Castillo TOVAR, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
    No. 16-2063
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 14, 2017
    Filed: March 2, 2017
    
      Christopher James Roth, Forney & Roth, Omaha, NE, Lauren Schmoke, Ka-saby & Nicholls, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner
    Matt Crapo, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Brendan Paul Hogan, Carl H. McIntyre, Oil Oil, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before COLLOTON, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Mexican citizen Dolores Castillo Tovar petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of withholding of removal. Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision, but also adds its own reasoning, this court reviews both decisions together. See Aguinada-Lopez v. Lynch, 825 F.3d 407, 408 (8th Cir. 2016) (factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and are reversed only if any reasonable adjudicator would . be compelled to reach contrary conclusion). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the determination that Mrs. Castillo To-var' does not qualify for withholding of removal based on her membership in the particular social group she identified. See Gonzalez Cano v. Lynch, 809 F.3d 1056, 1058 (8th Cir. 2016) (to establish entitlement to withholding of removal, petitioner must demonstrate clear probability that her life or freedom would be threatened due to, among other things, membership in particular social group; applicant must show it is more likely than not she would suffer persecution if returned to home country). The petition for review is denied. 
      
      . This court lacks jurisdiction to consider Mrs. Castillo Tovar’s challenge to the denial of voluntary departure. See Cinto-Velasquez v. Lynch, 817 F.3d 602, 607 (8th Cir. 2016).