Case Name: Pablo Antonio MURILLO, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-22
Citations: 489 F. App'x 996
Docket Number: No. 12-1191
Parties: Pablo Antonio MURILLO, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 489
Pages: 996–996

Head Matter:
Pablo Antonio MURILLO, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 12-1191.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 17, 2012.
Filed: Oct. 22, 2012.
Bilal Khaleeq, Khaleeq Law Firm, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner.
Karen Yolanda Drummond, Richard M. Evans, Jason Wisecup, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Pablo Antonio Murillo, a citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which upheld an immigration judge's denial of his claims for asylum and withholding of removal based on his alleged membership in a particular social group. After careful review, we find no basis for reversal. Specifically, we conclude that the BIA correctly determined that Murillo's purported particular social group did not constitute a protected group for purposes of asylum and withholding of removal. See Gaitan v. Holder, 671 F.3d 678, 680-81 (8th Cir.) (this court will not overturn BIA's interpretation of statute unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to statute; social visibility and particularity requirements are not arbitrary or capricious), petition for cert. filed, 81 U.S.L.W. 3004 (U.S. June 20, 2012) (No. 11-1525).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. In addition, we now lift the temporary stay of removal that was previously granted by this court.
. Murillo also pursued cancellation of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture, but he does not address these claims in his brief; thus, they are waived. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir.2004) (appellant waives claim that is not meaningfully raised in opening brief).