United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-1510

___________________________

Enrique Lopez-Mendez

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: September 18, 2012

 Filed: October 29, 2012

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, SMITH and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

RILEY, Chief Judge.

On June 8, 2009, an immigration judge (IJ) denied Enrique Lopez-Mendez’s

application for asylum and withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) dismissed Lopez-Mendez’s appeal on May 31, 2011, and denied his

motion to reopen his removal proceedings on January 31, 2012. Lopez-Mendez

requests we review all three decisions. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in

declining to reopen Lopez-Mendez’s proceedings, and we now lack jurisdiction to
review directly the two earlier decisions. See Boudaguian v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 825,

827 (8th Cir. 2004). Lopez-Mendez’s review petition is denied. 

I. BACKGROUND

Lopez-Mendez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States

without being admitted or paroled in 2000. In 2003, the United States Immigration

and Naturalization Service (INS) charged Lopez-Mendez with removability under 1

Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). 

Lopez-Mendez sought asylum and withholding of removal based on threats he

claimed he received from gang members or former guerillasin Guatemala seeking to

coerce Lopez-Mendez into joining their gang.

A. IJ Decision and Initial BIA Appeal

On June 8, 2009, the IJ denied Lopez-Mendez asylum and withholding of

removal. On May 31, 2011, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of relief because LopezMendez’s “past fear of gang members, who never physically harmed him, did not rise

to the level of past persecution, and . . . he failed to establish a nexus between his fear

of persecution and an enumerated ground.” The BIA explained Lopez-Mendez did

not “establish[] that gang members will seek him out, or that they are motivated by

anything other than to increase the ranks of their gang, or bolstering their criminal

activity.” The BIA stated that indigenous Guatemalans, such as Lopez-Mendez, are

“subject to severe discrimination,” but found Lopez-Mendez did not demonstrate “a

pattern or practice of persecution by the government or forces the government is

either unable or unwilling to control.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i). TheBIA also

denied protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), see

8 C.F.R. § 208.16, based on “insufficient evidence to suggest that [Lopez-Mendez]

The INS ceased to exist in 2003, when “its enforcement functions were 1

transferred to the Department of Homeland Security.” Camishi v. Holder, 616 F.3d

883, 884 n.2 (8th Cir. 2010).

-2-
wastortured in Guatemala or that any government official in Guatemala would either

torture him upon his return or acquiesce in his torture by others.”

Lopez-Mendez did not petition our court for review of the BIA’s May 31, 2011

decision or the earlier IJ decision within thirty days, as required by 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(1). 

B. Motion to Reopen Proceedings

On July 25, 2011, Lopez-Mendez moved to reopen his removal proceedings

pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), asserting “a material change of circumstances

in that the threats to [Lopez-Mendez were] ongoing” and “based on [LopezMendez’s] race, namely that he is an indigenous person of Guatemala.” In support,

Lopez-Mendez attached two letters as exhibits. A translator Lopez-Mendez hired

indicated the first letter read, in part

You are an indigenous a[------] and we don’t like it when you speak your

dialect[.] 

We gave you the opportunity to join our gang but you didn’t want to so

that is why we are waiting for you to cut your head off and then to make

you disappear forever, we want to tear you to pieces, torture you and put

lots of bullets in you[.] 

The second letter purportedly repeated the threats, but did not explain the writer’s

motivation. 

TheBIA denied Lopez-Mendez’s motion to reopen the proceedings on January

31, 2012, finding Lopez-Mendez did not show reopening his proceedings likely

would result in a different outcome. The BIA found the unsigned letters vague and

“they still do not establish a nexus between the threats and a protected ground.” The

BIA explained the first letter stated the threats were motivated by Lopez-Mendez’s

refusal to join the gang, which the BIA noted “does not constitute a particular social

-3-
group.” Finally, the BIA stated the letters did “not demonstrate a change in

Guatemala, but rather a continuation of the civil strife and criminal activity that

[Lopez-Mendez] has feared since he left the country in 2000.”

Lopez-Mendez appeals (1) the IJ’s denial of his application; (2) the BIA’s

denial of Lopez-Mendez’s initial appeal; and (3) the BIA’s denial of Lopez-Mendez’s

motion to reopen his proceedings. 

II. DISCUSSION

Because Lopez-Mendez did not file a timely petition in our court to review the

BIA’s initial order in his case, “[o]ur jurisdiction islimited to review of the BIA order

denying [Lopez-Mendez’s] motion to . . . reopen the asylum proceedings.”

Boudaguian, 376 F.3d at 827; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

“A motion to reopen proceedings shall state the new facts that will be proven

at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted . . . . [and] shall not be granted

unless . . . [the] evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and

could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(1). We review the BIA’s denial ofsuch a motion for abuse of discretion. 

See Boudaguian, 376 F.3d at 827. 

The BIA abuses its discretion if its decision is “without rational

explanation, departsfromestablished policies, invidiouslydiscriminates

against a particular race or group, or where the agency fails to consider

all factors presented by the alien or distorts important aspects of the

claim.”

Kanyi v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1087, 1089 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Feleke v. INS, 118

F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 1997)).

-4-
Lopez-Mendez asserts the BIA erred in denying his motion to reopen because

the first letter shows gang members “are clearly persecuting [Lopez-Mendez] based

on his membership in” an indigenous group. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)

(requiring an applicant for asylum to prove “race, religion, nationality, membership

in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central

reason for persecuting the applicant”). The BIA was entitled to rely on the

explanation in the first letter that the letters’ threats stemmed from Lopez-Mendez’s

refusal to join the gang and could reject Lopez-Mendez’s proposed alternative

explanation. Further, “persons resistant to gang violence are too diffuse to be

recognized as a particular social group.” Constanza v. Holder, 647 F.3d 749, 754 (8th

Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the letters do not

undermine the BIA’s initial determination that Lopez-Mendez failed to establish a

well-founded fear of persecution based upon an enumerated ground for relief, the BIA

did not abuse its discretion in deciding Lopez-Mendez failed to satisfy his heavy

evidentiary burden to reopen the removal proceedings. Boudaguian, 376 F.3d at 2

829; see also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B), 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). 

Lopez-Mendez also contends the BIA abused its discretion in denying his

motion to reopen because “the physical threats of violence were much more detailed

in the letters than they had been in the past.” The purported additional detail in the

letters does not affect our analysis because Lopez-Mendez’s inability to prove a nexus

between the threats and a protected ground precludes granting him asylum or

withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A). 

Separate analysis of Lopez-Mendez’s CAT claimwas not required because the

2

new letters did not suggest Lopez-Mendez “might be tortured for reasons unrelated

to [his] claims for asylum and withholding of removal.” Alemu v. Gonzales, 403

F.3d 572, 576 (8th Cir. 2005).

-5-
III. CONCLUSION

We deny and dismiss Lopez-Mendez’s review petition seeking to reopen his

removal proceedings.

______________________________

-6-