Case Name: Pedro Eliseo LOPEZ-RAMIREZ Petitioner v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-06
Citations: 670 F. App'x 916
Docket Number: No. 16-1673
Parties: Pedro Eliseo LOPEZ-RAMIREZ Petitioner v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States Respondent
Judges: Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 916–917

Head Matter:
Pedro Eliseo LOPEZ-RAMIREZ Petitioner v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States Respondent
No. 16-1673
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: November 30, 2016
Filed: December 6, 2016
Daniel Scott Reeker, Kendall Law Office, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner
Karen Yolanda Drummond, Maarja Ti-ganik Luhtaru, Rosanne Perry, Trial Attorneys, Carl H. McIntyre, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Pedro Elíseo Lopez-Ramirez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an immigration judge's (IJ's) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ's decision, but adds its own reasoning, this court reviews both the BIA's and IJ's decisions together. See Garcia-Milian v. Lynch, 825 F.3d 943, 945 (8th Cir. 2016) (decisions are reviewed to determine if substantial evidence supports them, and are reversed only when petitioner shows evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find in his favor). To qualify for asylum, Mr. Lopez-Ramirez had to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of, as relevant, membership in a particular social group. See Garcia-Colindres v. Holder, 700 F.3d 1153, 1156 (8th Cir. 2012). Further, he had to show that the particular social group he identified was composed of members who shared a common immutable characteristic, were defined with particularity, and were socially distinct within the society in question. See Ngugi v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 1132, 1137-38 (8th Cir. 2016). We conclude that the group he identified— Guatemalan males whose denial of gang involvement caused them to be beaten before coming to the United States—failed to meet those requirements. See Juarez Chi- lel v. Holder, 779 F.3d 850, 855 (8th Cir. 2015) (groups of persons who suffered violence, or threats of violence, due to their refusals to join criminal gangs lacks requisite visibility, particularity, and/or social distinction to qualify as particular social group); Ortiz-Puentes v. Holder, 662 F.3d 481, 483 (8th Cir. 2011) (agreeing with IJ and BIA that criminal violence and recruitment efforts by Guatemalan gang did not implicate enumerated protected ground). Because Mr. Lopez-Ramirez did not establish eligibility for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily failed as well. See Ngugi, 826 F.3d at 1139 (withholding of removal requires higher burden of proof than asylum). The petition for review is denied.