UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1176

JUAN OCTAVIO RAMOS-GONZALEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: September 22, 2011 Decided: November 10, 2011

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marc Seguinót, SEGUINÓT & ASSOCIATES, PC, Dunn Loring, Virginia, 

for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. 

Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, Michele Y. F. Sarko, Office 

of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Juan Octavio Ramos-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of 

Nicaragua, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s order denying his applications for 

withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention 

Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.

To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, 

an alien must show a clear probability that, if he was removed 

to his native country, his “life or freedom would be threatened” 

on a protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2006); see

Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). A “clear 

probability” means that it is more likely than not that the 

alien would be subject to persecution. INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 

407, 429-30 (1984). Persecution “involves the infliction or 

threat of death, torture, or injury to one’s person or 

freedom[.]” Qiao Hua Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177 (4th 

Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Persecution is 

an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment 

that our society regards as offensive.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks omitted). Withholding of removal is mandatory for anyone 

whose establishes that their “life or freedom would be 

threatened . . . because of [their] race, religion, nationality, 
3

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 

8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2006).

A determination regarding eligibility for withholding 

of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on 

the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 

U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of fact are 

conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled 

to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). 

Legal issues are reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate 

deference to the BIA’s interpretation of the INA and any 

attendant regulations[.]” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 

691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This court will reverse the Board only 

if “the evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no 

reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of 

persecution.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. 

INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Because the Board 

affirmed the immigration judge’s order and supplemented it, both 

decisions are subject to judicial review. Niang v. Gonzales, 

492 F.3d 505, 511 n.8 (4th Cir. 2007).

Ramos-Gonzalez based his claim on his membership in a 

particular social group: Nicaraguan homosexuals. The 

immigration judge found Ramos-Gonzalez was credible and that he 

was a member of that particular social group. The immigration 

judge denied withholding from removal on the basis that Ramos-
4

Gonzalez did not show that it was more likely than not that he 

will be persecuted in Nicaragua because of his membership in a 

particular social group. 

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the 

immigration judge’s and the Board’s findings and the record does

not compel a different result. The evidence shows that 

homosexuality was decriminalized in Nicaragua in 2008 and that 

the government is making attempts to prevent discrimination 

based on sexual orientation. We note that the record is very 

short of any evidence that homosexuals in Ramos-Gonzalez’s 

position are facing a threat of persecution or that the 

Nicaraguan government is unwilling or unable to protect 

homosexuals. While the record does show that homosexuals in 

Nicaragua are discriminated against in education, housing and 

employment, there is no evidence that such discrimination rises 

to the level of economic persecution. Economic penalties may 

rise to the level of persecution only if the sanctions “are 

sufficiently harsh to constitute a threat to life or freedom.” 

Qiao Hua Li, 405 F.3d at 177 (internal quotation marks omitted).*

 * Ramos-Gonzalez has waived review of the immigration 

judge’s decision denying relief under the CAT. The Board noted 

that he did not raise a challenge to that finding on appeal. We 

note that he does not contest that in this petition for review. 

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006), “[a] court may review 

a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted 

all administrative remedies available to the alien as of 

(Continued)
5

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

 

right[.]” This court has noted that “an alien who has failed to 

raise claims during an appeal to the [Board] has waived his 

right to raise those claims before a federal court on appeal of 

the [Board’s] decision.” Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 697, 700 

(4th Cir. 1990). Moreover, this court has held that it lacks 

jurisdiction to consider an argument not made before the Board. 

Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004).