NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 14a0507n.06

No. 13-4088

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

FREDY GRAMAJO-LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW 

FROM THE UNITED STATES 

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION 

APPEALS

BEFORE: CLAY and STRANCH, Circuit Judges; BLACK, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM. Fredy Gramajo-Lopez petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application 

for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

Gramajo-Lopez is a native and citizen of Guatemala. He entered the United States in 

June 2007. In December 2010, Gramajo-Lopez filed an application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the CAT, alleging that, if he is returned to Guatemala, he will be 

persecuted and tortured because of his refusal to join a criminal gang. The IJ denied GramajoLopez relief, concluding that his asylum application was untimely and that he failed to 

demonstrate that he was likely to be tortured if returned to Guatemala. The IJ further concluded 

that, for purposes of withholding of removal, Gramajo-Lopez failed to establish that he was a 

 

*

The Honorable Timothy S. Black, United States District Judge for the Southern District 

of Ohio, sitting by designation.
No. 13-4088

Gramajo-Lopez v. Holder

- 2 -

member of a particular social group or that he was likely to be persecuted by the Guatemalan 

government or individuals who the government is unable or unwilling to control. The BIA 

affirmed the IJ’s decision.

On appeal, Gramajo-Lopez argues that the IJ and BIA erred by concluding that he failed 

to establish that he was a member of a particular social group for purposes of asylum and 

withholding of removal. Gramajo-Lopez also argues that the BIA erred by affirming the IJ’s 

decision without meaningful analysis. Despite Gramajo-Lopez’s argument to the contrary, the 

record reflects that the BIA gave appropriate consideration to the issues that he raised and 

adequately explained its decision to deny him relief. See Akhtar v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 399, 408 

(6th Cir. 2005). Where, as here, the BIA does not summarily affirm or adopt the IJ’s reasoning 

and provides an explanation for its decision, we review the BIA’s decision as the final agency 

determination. Ilic-Lee v. Mukasey, 507 F.3d 1044, 1047 (6th Cir. 2007). We review de novo

questions of law. Abdurakhmanov v. Holder, 735 F.3d 341, 345 (6th Cir. 2012).

To the extent that Gramajo-Lopez argues that his asylum application was meritorious, we 

need not review the claim because Gramajo-Lopez has failed to challenge the dispositive finding 

that his asylum application was untimely. See Khozhaynova v. Holder, 641 F.3d 187, 191 (6th 

Cir. 2011). Likewise, to the extent that Gramajo-Lopez challenges the conclusion that he failed 

to establish membership in a particular social group for purposes of withholding of removal, we 

need not review the claim because Gramajo-Lopez has not challenged the dispositive finding that 

he failed to demonstrate that he was likely to be persecuted by the Guatemalan government or 

individuals who the government is unable or unwilling to control. See Khalili v. Holder, 

557 F.3d 429, 435-36 (6th Cir. 2009). 

Accordingly, we DENY Gramajo-Lopez’s petition for review.
No. 13-4088

Gramajo-Lopez v. Holder

- 3 -

It is so ORDERED.