United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1436

___________________________

Santiago Martinez-Galarza, also known as Facundo Parias-Martinez

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: February 11, 2015

 Filed: April 9, 2015

____________

Before BYE, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

Santiago Martinez-Galarza, a citizen and native of Mexico, petitions for review

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an immigration

judge's (IJ) denial of Martinez-Galarza's application for asylum, withholding of

removal, withholding under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and voluntary

departure. We deny the petition for review. 
I. BACKGROUND

Martinez-Galarza entered the United States on or about August, 20, 1986,

without admission or parole, and in 1999 he was granted voluntary departure by an

IJ and left the United States. Martinez-Galarza entered the United States again on or

about May 20, 2000, without admission or parole. In October 2010, MartinezGalarza was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and

subsequently removal proceedings were commenced against Martinez-Galarza,

charging him with removability under § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (INA). Martinez-Galarza asserts that after ICE detained him, ICE

agents promised to help him stay in the United States and obtain a work permit for

him, in exchange for information on Adrian Parias Sanchez, Martinez-Galarza's

nephew. Martinez-Galarza asserts he provided information on Sanchez, which

resulted in the arrest and subsequent removal of Sanchez. Sanchez was arrested and

deported back to Mexico in November 2010.

Martinez-Galarza was initially scheduled to appear before the court on

February 17, 2011, but his master calendar hearing was continued. On February 7,

2012, Martinez-Galarza appeared, with counsel, before an IJ. He admitted all of the

factual allegations and conceded the charge of removability. Martinez-Galarza

declined to designate a country, and the IJ designated Mexico. The IJ also noted that

Martinez-Galarza was not eligible for voluntary departure as he had previously been

granted voluntary departure by the court in 1999 and, after leaving, reentered the

United States illegally in 2000. 

Martinez-Galarza filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal and

protection under the CAT. On September 18, 2012, Martinez-Galarza submitted a

prehearing memorandum in support of his application. In the memorandum,

Martinez-Galarza asserted that he was a member of a social group "consisting of

people who have provided information to [ICE] to enable that organization to remove

-2-
individuals residing illegally in the [United States]," as well as a member of a second

social group consisting of "witnesses for ICE." Martinez-Galarza also recounted in

the memorandum his 2010 detainment by ICE, and his assertions that ICE promised

to allow him to remain in the United States and issue a work permit, in exchange for

information on Sanchez. Martinez-Galarza stated that he feared returning to Mexico

because of Sanchez, who believed that Martinez-Galarza had "ended his American

dream." Martinez-Galarza further asserted that Sanchez had beaten his brother,

Esteban, and killed his nephew, Marcelo Alarcon, because Sanchez was angry with

Martinez-Galarza. Martinez-Galarza also asserted that Sanchez threatened to kill

him. Lastly, Martinez-Galarza acknowledged that his petition for asylum was

untimely filed, but he argued that the November 2010 removal of Sanchez was a

changed or extraordinary circumstance which excused his untimely filing. He also

argued that he was unable to file his application for asylum right after Sanchez was

removed in 2010 because his master calendar hearing had been continued until

February 7, 2012.

Hearings on the matter took place on October 2 and 4, 2012. On October 4,

2012, the IJ issued an oral decision denying Martinez-Galarza's applications for

asylum, withholding of removal and CAT protection. The IJ found MartinezGalarza's asylum application time-barred, since he did not file the application within

a reasonable time after the qualifying event, Sanchez's November 2010 removal. 

Alternatively, the IJ found that Martinez-Galarza's claimed social groups lacked

social visibility and particularity. As to Martinez-Galarza's request for withholding

of removal, the IJ found that he was not eligible for withholding of removal because

he had failed to establish the lower standard of asylum. The IJ also determined that

Martinez-Galarza was not eligible for CAT protection, because he had not submitted

evidence that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured by the Mexican

government or its agents upon his return to Mexico.

-3-
Martinez-Galarza petitioned for review of the IJ's decision with the BIA on

October 31, 2012. The BIA dismissed Martinez-Galarza's petition on January 27,

2014, largely adopting the IJ's findings, except for the IJ's determination that

Martinez-Galarza's asylum application was time-barred. The BIA found that

Martinez-Galarza had demonstrated a change in circumstancesto excuse his untimely

filing for asylum. The issue of timeliness aside, the BIA agreed that MartinezGalarza failed to establish his eligibility for asylum for the same reasons identified

by the IJ–that Martinez-Galarza's claimed particular social group did not meet the

required standards. Furthermore, the BIA found that fear of personal retribution was

not a basis for asylum. The BIA also determined that Martinez-Galarza did not meet

the standard for withholding of removal. Lastly, the BIA found that MartinezGalarza did not appeal the IJ's finding that he was ineligible for CAT protection.

Martinez-Galarza subsequently filed this petition for review. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

We review the BIA's decision as a final agency decision. Ismail v. Ashcroft,

396 F.3d 970, 974 (8th Cir. 2005). And, to the extent that the BIA adopted the IJ's

findings, we also review the IJ's findings as part of the final agency decision. Id. We

review de novo issues of law, and review the agency's findings of facts under the

substantial evidence standard. Omondi v. Holder, 674 F.3d 793, 797 (8th Cir. 2012). 

That standard provides that "the findings of facts are conclusive unless any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary." Id. 

B. Asylum Claim

To establish eligibility for asylum an applicant must show he is a "refugee," a

person who is unwilling or unable to return to his country or origin "because of

-4-
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of . . . membership in

a particular social group." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (emphasis added). To establish a

well-founded fear of persecution, in the absence of evidence of past persecution, the

applicant must show a subjective fear, as well as an objectively "reasonable

possibility of suffering such persecution if he or she were to return to that country."

8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(i)(B).

In his petition for review, Martinez-Galarza reiterates that he faces a credible

threat to his life because Sanchez believes Martinez-Galarza ended his American

dream and has threatened to kill him if he returns to Mexico. Martinez-Galarza also

argues that Mexico in general is experiencing an increase in organized crime, and

asserts that it is well known that police and government officials take bribes to carry

out hits on individuals. He concludes that it is therefore "highly unlikely that the

government will do anything to protect [him]." 

Even taking everything Martinez-Galarza says as true, which the IJ did,

Martinez-Galarza's claims do not satisfy the burden that his fear of persecution is on

account of his membership in a particular social group. Martinez-Galarza does not

claim that Sanchez wants to persecute him because of Martinez-Galarza's status as a

member of the social group "consisting of people who have provided information to

[ICE] to enable that organization to remove individuals residing illegally in the

[United States]." Sanchez's alleged reason for wanting to harm MartinezGalarza–because Martinez-Galarza ended Sanchez's American dream–is motivated

by purely personal retribution, and thus not a valid basis for an asylum claim. See

Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013); Matter of Y-G-, 20 I. & N.

Dec. 794, 799 (BIA 1994); cf. Eusebio v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1088, 1091 (8th Cir.

2004) (finding that applicant did not establish eligibility for asylumwhere his claimed

past persecution was as a result of "personal animosity rather than political beliefs").

-5-
There may be asylum protections for an applicant who shows the threatened

persecution is motivated by both personal retaliation and a protected motive, 

Madrigal, 716 F.3d at 506, but Martinez-Galarza presents no evidence to suggest this

isthe situation here. He does not allege that Sanchez has threatened or attacked other

ICE informants. In fact, the other individuals Sanchez has targeted–MartinezGalarza's brother and nephew–suggest even more strongly that Sanchez has a

personal grudge with Martinez-Galarza, and is not threatening him as a result of

Martinez-Galarza's nexus to an alleged particular social group. Accordingly,

Martinez-Galarza has failed to meet his burden to establish he is eligible for asylum.

C. Other Claims

It is unclear from Martinez-Galarza's brief whether he is also seeking review

of the BIA's determination that he is not eligible for withholding of deportation and

CAT protection. Martinez-Galarza states he is petitioning for review of the BIA

decision that upheld the IJ's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding

of removal, protection under CAT and voluntary departure. However, MartinezGalarza makes no substantive arguments in his brief regarding his eligibility for

withholding of removal, CAT protections, or voluntary departure, aside from a

fleeting mention that "[p]ast and/or future persecutions are factors considered in

asylum, withholding of deportation, and [CAT] claims." Furthermore, the BIA noted

in its decision that Martinez-Galarza did not challenge the IJ's denial of voluntary

departure and CAT protection in his petition before the BIA. The BIA has

determined that issues not addressed on review are deemed waived. Matter of

Edwards, 20 I. & N. Dec. 191, 202 n.4 (BIA 1990); see also Marksmeier v. Davie,

622 F.3d 896, 902 n.4 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding claims not argued are waived). Thus,

we decline to address Martinez-Galarza's claims for withholding of removability,

CAT protections, and voluntary departure. 

-6-
III. CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the BIA's decision. 

______________________________

-7-