Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02233/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02233-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael B. Mukasey
Respondent
Dilca Elisa Perez Perez
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

Michael B. Mukasey 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).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2233

___________

Dilca Elisa Perez Perez, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the Board

* of Immigration Appeals.

Michael B. Mukasey,1

 United States *

Attorney General, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: May 14, 2008

Filed: June 3, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan native and citizen Dilca Elisa Perez Perez (Perez) petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an

Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum and withholding of removal. We deny

the petition.

Appellate Case: 07-2233 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2008 Entry ID: 3439717
-2-

First, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Perez’s

asylum application was time-barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Ngure v. Ashcroft,

367 F.3d 975, 989 (8th Cir. 2004). 

Second, we conclude that substantial evidence in the record supported the

BIA’s denial of withholding of removal. See Miah v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 784, 787

(8th Cir. 2008) (denial of withholding of removal reviewed under substantial-evidence

standard). Perez failed to show a clear probability that she will face persecution on

account of a protected ground if she returned to Guatemala. See Ming Ming Wijono

v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 2006) (applicant seeking withholding of

removal had burden to show clear probability of persecution, which is same as

showing persecution is more likely than not to occur). Her evidence did not

adequately show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See

Setiadi v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 710, 713-14 (8th Cir. 2006) (past persecution does not

normally include unfulfilled threats of physical injury, and even minor beatings do not

usually rise to level of past persecution; allegations of general fear of persecution

because of isolated acts of violence against someone other than petitioner are usually

insufficient to establish fear of future persecution); Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129

(2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (in absence of solid support in record for alien’s assertion

that he would be persecuted, his fear was “speculative at best”); Bernal-Rendon v.

Gonzales, 419 F.3d 877, 881 (8th Cir. 2005) (alien’s fear of persecution is reduced

when family remains unharmed in native country).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2233 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2008 Entry ID: 3439717