1

The BIA also affirmed the IJ's denial of Gutul's application for relief under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because Gutul has waived his CAT claim by

failing to present meaningful argument on it in his opening brief, we do not consider

it here. Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2435

___________

Vladimir Pavlovich Gutul, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the Board

* of Immigration Appeals.

Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: May 16, 2008

Filed: August 29, 2008

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Vladimir Pavlovich Gutul petitions for review of an order by the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA), affirming the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) to

deny Gutul's applications for asylum and withholding of removal.1

 We deny the

petition.
-2-

We review the BIA's order as the final agency adjudication, and "the IJ's

findings and reasoning to the extent they were expressly adopted by the BIA."

Fofanah v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1037, 1040 (8th Cir. 2006). We review questions of

law de novo and we review factual findings for substantial evidence, reversing only

if the evidence "'was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the

requisite fear of persecution.'" Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429, 433

(8th Cir. 2007) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992)). 

To be eligible for asylum, Gutul must establish that he is unable or unwilling

to return to Moldova "because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on

account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or

political opinion." Carmenatte-Lopez v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 540, 541 (8th Cir. 2008)

(quotation omitted). More specifically, Gutul "must establish that one of these

enumerated grounds was or will be at least one central reason for his persecution." Id.

(internal quotation omitted). Similarly, to qualify for withholding of removal, Gutul

must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted upon return

to Moldova on account of one of those same five grounds. Purwantono v. Gonzales,

498 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2007). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude

that substantial evidence–as detailed in the BIA's well-reasoned order–supports the

agency's determination that Gutul did not establish past persecution or a well-founded

fear of future persecution on account of his political opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Moreover, the BIA correctly determined that Gutul's proposed social group was

neither so readily identifiable nor so well-defined as to constitute a particular social

group within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See Davila-Mejia

v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 624, 628-29 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that particular social group

must be one whose members are recognized as a group by society and that is defined

in specific, objective terms that create a definitive benchmark by which group

membership can be determined). 
-3-

As Gutul did not establish eligibility for asylum, his claim for withholding of

removal also fails. Quomsieh v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 602, 606 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting

that because the standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than the

standard for asylum, an alien who fails to establish eligibility for asylum necessarily

cannot meet the standard required to qualify for withholding).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is denied. 

______________________________