UNITED STATES COURT 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 the Board 

of Immigration Appeals. The petitioner (Mr. Aguilar-Perez) is a Mexican 

citizen who overstayed his visa in the United States. He would ordinarily 

be considered removable, but he sought asylum and withholding of 

removal. The Board rejected both requests, and Mr. Aguilar-Perez 

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 of the appeal. So we have decided the appeal 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 Court
2 

 The petition rests on facts that are largely undisputed. Before 

entering the United States, Mr. Aguilar-Perez worked in Chihuahua, 

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 drug trafficking. 

 These threats led Mr. Aguilar-Perez to quit the police force. For 

roughly two years, he continued to live in Mexico. But his fears resurfaced 

when someone killed his former partner and tried to kill Mr. AguilarPerez’s brother-in-law (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 withholding of removal.1 The Immigration Judge 

denied both forms of relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals 

affirmed.2

Standard of Review

 We review the Board’s decision, which consisted of a single Board 

member’s summary decision. In reviewing the Board’s decision, we 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 claim in part because it 

was untimely. But the Board assumed timeliness, so we need not decide 

whether the asylum claim was timely. 
3 

F.3d 1003, 1008–09 (10th Cir. 2012). Regardless of whether we consult the 

Immigration Judge’s explanation, however, we engage in de novo review of 

the Board’s decision. Elzour v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 1143, 1150 (10th Cir. 

2004). 

 Mr. Aguilar-Perez contends that the Board lacked substantial 

evidence for the decision. To assess this contention, we regard the Board’s 

factual findings as conclusive unless all reasonable decision-makers would 

have disagreed. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); River-Barrientos v. Holder, 666 

F.3d 641, 645 (10th Cir. 2012). 

Asylum 

 Mr. Aguilar-Perez would be eligible for asylum only if he established 

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 (10th Cir. 2013). Mr. 

Aguilar-Perez requested asylum based on both past persecution and fear of 

future persecution. 

 He based both requests on his membership in a particular social 

group consisting of incorruptible former police officers. The Board 

assumed that this group could qualify as a particular social group. But 

membership of that 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 former police officer. But the Board found no 

connection, so we ask only whether the Board’s finding was reasonable. 

We believe that it was. Mr. Aguilar-Perez did face threats and intimidation 

while working as a police officer. But he had quit the police force roughly 

two years before immigrating to the United States, and he has not alleged 

exposure to persecution after quitting the police force. Thus, a reasonable 

decision-maker could reject a connection between the threats to Mr. 

Aguilar-Perez as an active police officer and his current status as an 

incorruptible former police officer. 

 Mr. Aguilar-Perez also insists that he fears future persecution if he 

returned to Mexico. For this claim, he needed to show that he reasonably 

feared persecution based on evidence 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-maker could 

have credited Mr. Aguilar-Perez’s allegation. But the Board didn’t credit 

this allegation, and the Board’s factual determination was reasonable. 

 Mr. Aguilar-Perez testified that he had information that a criminal 

group in Mexico had been killing former police officers. He also presented 

an article stating that a Mexican police chief had been targeted even after 

leaving the police force. According to the article, the former police chief 
5 

had obtained recognition for cutting crime in both Tijuana and Ciudad 

Juarez. 

 But the Board could legitimately conclude that Mr. Aguilar-Perez had 

not genuinely or reasonably feared persecution as a former police officer. 

The article referred only to a single report of violence against a former 

police chief. And all of the other documentary evidence related only to 

violence against active Mexican police officers and other public officials. 

So the Board’s factual finding was supported by substantial evidence. See 

Estrada-Escobar v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 1042, 1047–48 (10th Cir. 2004) 

(upholding the denial of a former Peruvian police officer’s asylum claim 

based on a fear of future persecution despite evidence that a high-profile 

activist had been assassinated after leaving and returning to Peru); see also 

Ahmed v. Ashcraft, 348 F.3d 611, 617–19 (7th Cir. 2003) (holding that the 

Board had substantial evidence to reject a former Algerian police officer’s 

claim for asylum based on a fear of future persecution). 

 We therefore conclude that the Board had substantial evidence to 

reject the asylum claim. 

Withholding of Removal 

Mr. Aguilar-Perez bore an even greater burden to justify withholding 

of removal. Zhi Wei Pang v. Holder, 665 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 2012). 

Because he failed to show eligibility for asylum, the Board could 

reasonably conclude that he would also fail to justify withholding of 
6 

removal. See Rodas-Orelanna v. Holder, 780 F.3d 982, 987 (10th Cir. 

2015) (“Failure to meet the burden of proof for an asylum claim

necessarily forecloses meeting the burden for a withholding claim.”). 

* * * * 

 We conclude that substantial evidence existed for the denial of both 

asylum and withholding of removal. Given these conclusions, we deny the 

petition for review. 

Entered for the Court 

Robert E. Bacharach 

Circuit Judge