NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 12a1140n.06 No. 11-3994 UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T
MI RNA MARI BEL

VI NDEL , Petitioner,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Gene ral, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW FROM A F I

NAL ORDER OF TH E BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON APPEAL S

Be fore : MARTI

N and WHI TE, Circuit J udg es; ECONOMUS, District J udg e. *

PER CURI AM. Mirna Maribel Vindel petitions for revie w of an order by the Boa rd of I mmigration Appea ls dism i s s ing her appea l from the decision of an immigration judge (I J ) that denied her applications for withholding of remova l and protec tion under the Convention Against Torture

. Vindel is a n at i v e an d citizen of Hondura s who enter ed the United States without authorization. On April 21, 2008, the Depa rtment of Homeland Security commence d removal proce eding s ag ainst Vindel b y i s s u i ng a Notice to Appea r. Vindel indicated that she enter ed the United S tates on J anuar

y 1, 1998, admitted the alleg ations contained in the Notice t o Appea r, and

conce ded remova

bility

. She applied for asylum, withholding of remova l, and protec tion under the Convention Ag ainst Torture.

The Honora

ble Peter C. Economus, United States Senior District J udg e for the Norther n * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation.No. 11-3994 - 2 - Following a heari n g, an I J denied relief from remova l and order ed Vindel’s remova l to Hondura s. The B oard dismissed Vindel’s a ppeal. Vindel filed a timely petition f or revie w of the Boa

rd’s order

. She challeng es the denial of withholding of remova l, arguing that she established “a clea r probability of future perse cution, and that the perse cution she fea rs is on acc ount of an enumer at ed gro u n d under the [I mmigration and Nationality

Act].” Where, as here , “th e [Board] did not summarily aff irm or adopt the [ immigra tion judge ’s]

rea soning and provided an explanation for its decision, we revie w the [Board]’s decision as the final ag ency deter mination.” Ilic-Lee v. Mukase y , 507 F.3d 1044, 1047 (6th Cir. 2007). “To the e x tent the [Board] adopted the immigration judge ’s rea soning, howeve r, this C o urt also revie ws the immigration judge’ s decision.” Khalil i v. Holder , 557 F.3d 429, 435 ( 6th Cir. 2009). To qualify for withholding of remova l, an alien must establish that his “life or fre edom would be threatened in [t h e proposed] country [of remova l] beca use of [hi s] rac e, relig ion, nationality , membersh i p i n a p ar t icular social g roup, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)( 3)(A)

. An applicant for withholding of remova l must establish a clea r probability of perse cution, Singh v. Ashcroft , 398 F.3d 396, 401 (6th Cir. 2005), by demonstrating “that it is more li kely than not that his life or fre edom would be threatened by perse cution if he returne d to his home country .” PabloSanchez v. Holder , 600 F.3d 592, 594 (6th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) ( in te rnal quotation marks and citation omitted). Persec ution is “the infliction of harm or suffe ring by the g overnme nt, or persons the g overnme nt is unwilling or unable to control, to overc ome a char acte ristic of the victim.” Khalil i , 557 F.3d at 436. Vindel soug ht withholding of remova l based upon her membership in a particula r social g roup. I n her application for relief , Vindel stated that she fea rs “future perse cution beca use she has been in the United States and g ang members may assume that she has possession of or acc ess to larg e quantities of U.S. dollars.” Vindel further stated that “she is a single fema le who has lived in the United States for more t h an 10 y ear s,” and “fe ars she will become an easy targ et for g angNo. 11-3994 - 3 - members who as s u m e t h at she has U.S. money .” Vindel s tated that Hondura n g ang members are

awa re of her situation a

nd will ha rm or kill her and her children based upon her perc eived wea lth. She also fea

rs future perse cution if remove d to Hondura s “due to the rampa nt criminal activity perpe trated by

g angmembers.” The I J found that Vindel’s testimony was not cre dible and that she did not qualify for relief fr o m removal. The Boa rd disag ree d with the I J ’s cre dibilit y finding , but ag ree d with the I J ’s deter mination that Vindel di d not qualify for with holding of remova l. The Boar d ag ree d with the I J ’s deter mination that Vindel “has not identified herse lf as belong ing to a g roup having the requisite social visibil ity to qualify as a particula r social g roup” with respe ct to her fea r of perse cution based upon her perc eived wea lth. I n addition, the Boa rd conclude d that Vindel failed to establish a claim

even if her “fa

mily comprises a particula r social g roup.” The Boa

rd reje cted Vindel’s claim that she would be targ eted by g ang members or, more specific ally , the two p ar t i cu l ar g ang members who killed her brother, due to her relationship to her brother. The Boa rd found that Vindel “provide d no evidenc e, direc t or circ umstantial, that the men she fea rs would be motivated by a desire to punish

or overc ome that familial relationship.” The Boa rd also noted that Vindel’s “par ents, siblings, and children rema in in Hondura s, and have not been phy sically harme d by anyone since [Vindel] left that country in 1998.” Substantial evidenc e supports the decision of the Boa rd. See Zoarab v. Mukase y , 524 F.3d 777, 780 (6th Cir. 2008). Althoug h Vindel may be per ceive d as we althy

as a r esult of her

leng thy residenc y in the United States, she failed to establish that she belong s to a particula r social g roup for purposes of withholding of remova l. Nor does Vindel’s fea r o f gan gs establish a basis for membership in a particula r social g roup. See Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 743, 750 (6th Cir. 2006). Even if Vindel’s family constitutes a particula r social g roup, her fea

r of g ang violence based upon the death of her brother does not support her claim for withholding of remova l. See Akhtar v. Gonzales , 406 F.3d 399, 405–06 ( 6th Cir. 2005).No. 11-3994 - 4 - Vindel testified that one of the g a n g me mbers responsible for her brother’ s death was arr ested for the crime. This fac t establishes that the Hondura n g overnme nt is not indiffer ent to g ang violence

or unable to control it. See Stserba v. Holder , 646 F.3d 964, 979 (6th Cir. 2011). Although Vindel’s appellate brief mentions the Convention Ag ainst Torture , the brief contains no rea soned arguments challeng ing the Boa

rd’s deter mination that she is not enti t l ed to relief from remova l under the statute. The argument is there fore deeme d waived. Dillery v. City of Sandusky , 398 F.3d 562, 569 (6th Cir. 2005). The pe tition for reviewis denied.