UNITED STATES COU RT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ JUAN LUIS AGUILAR-PEREZ, Petitioner,

v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting United States Attorney General,  Respondent. No. 18-9513 (Petition for Review)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

________________ _________________ Before BACHARACH , PHILLIPS , and EID , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ This appeal involves a petition for review of a decision by th e Board of Immigration Appeals. The pe titioner (Mr. Aguilar-Perez) is a Mexican citizen who overstayed his visa in the Unit ed States. He would ordinarily be considered removable, but he sought asylum and withholding o f removal. The Board rejected both requests, and Mr. Aguilar-Pere z petitioned for review. We deny the petition.

 We substitute Mr. Matthew G. Whitaker as the respondent. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

** The parties do not request oral argument, and it would not materially aid our consideration o f the appeal. So we have decided the app eal based on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1(G). FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 13, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 The petition rests on facts that are largely undisputed. Befor e entering the United St ates, Mr. Aguilar-Per ez worked in Chihuah ua, Mexico, as a police officer. According to Mr. Aguilar-Perez, he and his partner faced threats from a criminal group involved in killing , extortion, kidnaping, and dru g trafficking. These threats led Mr. Aguilar-P erez to quit the police force. For roughly two years, he c ontinued to live in Mexico. But his fear s resurfaced when someone killed his former p artner and tried to kill Mr. Ag uilarPerez’s brother-in-la w (who was also a Mexican police officer). Mr. Aguilar-Perez entered the United States on a temporary visitor’ s visa and later sought asylum and wi thholding of removal. 1 The Immigration Judge denied both forms of relief, and the Board of Immigration Appea ls affirmed. 2
Standard of Review We review the Board’s decision, which consisted of a single Bo ard member’s summary decision. In reviewing the Board’s decision, w e may consult the Immigration Judge’s explanation. Neri-Garcia v. Holder , 696

1 Mr. Aguilar-Perez also sought protection under the Convention Against Torture. This request was denied, but Mr. Aguilar-Perez does not seek review of this part of the Board’s decision.

2 The Immigration Judge rejected the asylum clai m in part becau se it was untimely. But the Board assum ed timeliness, so we need not decide whether the asylum c laim was timely.3 F.3d 1003, 1008–09 ( 10th Cir. 2012). Regardl ess of whether we c onsult the Immigration Judge’s explanation , however, we eng age in de novo review of the Board’s decision. Elzour v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 1143, 1150 (10th Cir. 2004). Mr. Aguilar-Perez contends tha t the Board lack ed substantial evidence for the deci sion. To assess this contention, we regard the Board’s factual findings as conclusive u nless all reasonable decision-m akers would have disagreed. 8 U. S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); River-Barrientos v. Holder , 666 F.3d 641, 645 (10 th Cir. 2012). Asylum Mr. Aguilar-Perez would be eligible for asylum only if he esta blished status as a refugee. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13. He would be considered a refugee if he experienced or would experience persecution in Mexico at least in part because of his membership in a particular social group. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); Karki v. Holder , 715 F.3d 792, 800 (10t h Cir. 2013). Mr. Aguilar-Perez requested asylum ba sed on both past persecution a nd fear of future persecution. He based both requests on his membership in a particular socia l group consisting of incorruptible former police officers. The B oard assumed that this group could qualify as a particular social gr oup. But membership of th at group is not enough; Mr . Aguilar-Perez also needed to tie his persecution to his status as a former police officer.4 For the sake of argument, we assume that the Board could have found a connection between the past persecution and Mr. Aguilar-Perez ’s status as an incorruptible f ormer police officer. But the Board found no connection, so we ask only whether the Board’s finding was reas onable. We believe that it was. Mr. Agu ilar-Perez did f ace threats and intimidation while working as a po lice officer. But he h ad quit the police f orce roughly two years before immigrating to the United States, and he has n ot alleged exposure to persecution after quitting the police force. Thus, a reasonable decision-maker could reject a connection be tween the threats to Mr. Aguilar-Perez as an active poli ce officer and his current statu s as an incorruptible former police officer. Mr. Aguilar-Perez also insists t hat he fears future persecutio n if he returned to Mexico. For this clai m, he needed to show that he r easonably feared persecution based on evid ence that was both credible and direct. Wiransane v. Ashcroft , 366 F.3d 889, 893 (10th Cir. 2004). We can again assume for the sake of argument that a reasonable decision-make r could have credited Mr. Aguilar-Perez’s allegation. But the Board did n’t credit this allegation, and the Board’s factual determin ation was reas onable. Mr. Aguilar-Perez testified that he had information that a cri minal group in Mexico had b een killing former po lice officers. He als o presented an article stating tha t a Mexican police ch ief had been targete d even after leaving the police for ce. According to the article, the former police chief5 had obtained recogniti on for cutting crime in both Tijuana and Ciudad
Juarez. But the Board could legitimately conclude that Mr . Aguilar-Per ez had not genuinely or reason ably feared persecuti on as a former poli ce officer. The article referred on ly to a single report of violence agains t a former police chief. And all of the other documentary evidence related only to violence against active Mexican police officers a nd other public officials. So the Board’s factual finding was supported by substantial evi dence. See Estrada-Escobar v. Ashcroft , 376 F.3d 1042, 1047–48 (10th Cir. 2004) (upholding the denial of a former Peruvian police officer’s asy lum claim based on a fear of futu re persecution despi te evidence that a h igh-profile activist had been assassinated af ter leaving and returning to P eru); see also Ahmed v. Ashcraft , 348 F.3d 611, 617–19 ( 7th Cir. 2003) (h olding that the Board had substantial evidence to reject a former Algerian poli ce officer’s claim for asylum based on a f ear of future p ersecution). We therefore conclude that the Board had substantial evidence to reject the asylum claim. Withholding of Removal Mr. Aguilar-Perez bore an even g reater burden to justify withho lding of removal. Zhi Wei Pang v. Holder , 665 F.3d 1226, 1233 ( 10th Cir. 2012). Because he failed to show eligibility for as ylum, the Board cou ld reasonably conclude that he wou ld also fail to justify withhold ing of6 removal. See Rodas-Orel anna v. Holder , 780 F.3d 982, 987 (10th Cir. 2015) (“Failure to meet the burden of proof for an asylum claim necessarily forecloses meeting th e burden for a withholding cla im.”).
* * * * We conclude that substantial evidence existed for the denial o f both asylum and withholding of removal . Given these con clusions, we deny the petition for review.

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge