Case Name: Patricia Lazano DE PADILLA, Oscar Jaime Padilla Moreno, Petitioners, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-23
Citations: 403 F. App'x 472
Docket Number: No. 10-11398
Parties: Patricia Lazano DE PADILLA, Oscar Jaime Padilla Moreno, Petitioners, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 403
Pages: 472–473

Head Matter:
Patricia Lazano DE PADILLA, Oscar Jaime Padilla Moreno, Petitioners, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
No. 10-11398
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Nov. 23, 2010.
Vincent James Benincasa, Benincasa & Kennedy, P.A., Vero Beach, FL, for Petitioners.
Bernard Joseph, Office of Immigration Litigation, David Bernal, Krystal Samuels, U.S. DOJ OIL, Washington, DC, Michelle Ressler, District Counsel’s Office USICE, Miami, FL, for Respondent.
Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Oscar Jaime Padilla and his wife, Patricia Lazano de Padilla, natives and citizens of Colombia, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied Padilla's application for withholding of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). The Board found that Padilla was not a member of a "particular social group." We deny the petition.
The Padillas challenge the findings that the social group fashioned by Padilla was not "defined . with sufficient particularity" and was "insufficiently socially visible." The Padillas do not challenge the finding that their application for asylum was untimely, which we lack jurisdiction to review. Mendoza v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir.2003). With respect to the petition to review the denial of withholding of removal, we deny the petition for Padilla's wife because the regulation for this form of relief does not provide for derivative benefits. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c); Delgado v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 487 F.3d 855, 862 (11th Cir.2007).
Substantial evidence supports the decision to deny Padilla's application for withholding of removal based on membership in a protected social group. A group qualifies as a "particular social group" if its members share an immutable characteristic and are visible socially. Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 446 F.3d 1190, 1196 (11th Cir.2006). Padilla included as members of his social group those professionals who were unwilling to collaborate and share their knowledge and skills with revolutionaries against the Colombian government. Although members of Padilla's proposed group might have undergone similar education and training, their defining attribute is "[t]he risk of persecution" they face, which "alone does not create a particular social group." Id. at 1198. In addition, the group described by Padilla lacks social visibility because countless persons could declare membership based on any occupational skill they possess that is desired by the revolutionaries.
PETITION DENIED.