Case Name: Felix PEDRO-QUEZADA, 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: 2016-02-22
Citations: 637 F. App'x 256
Docket Number: No. 15-2041
Parties: Felix PEDRO-QUEZADA, Petitioner v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 256–257

Head Matter:
Felix PEDRO-QUEZADA, Petitioner v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 15-2041.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 17, 2016.
Filed: Feb. 22, 2016.
Felix Pedro-Quezada, argued, Freeport, TX, pro se.
Jessica Eden Burns, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Timothy Hayes, Carl H. McIntyre, U.S. Department of Justice, argued, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Felix Pedro-Quezada, a citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying him withholding of removal.
Pedro-Quezada challenges the IJ's determination that he failed to establish past persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution, based on a protected ground. After careful consideration, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Pedro-Quezada did not show a clear probability that his life or freedom in Honduras would be threatened upon return, due to a protected ground, see De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375, 379-80 (8th Cir.2013) (standard of review), because the two groups in which he asserts membership are not cognizable as particular social groups for purposes of immigration relief, see Matul-Hernandez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 707, 711-13 (8th Cir.2012) (individuals returning from United States and perceived as wealthy do not constitute recognized social group); see also Gaitan v. Holder, 671 F.3d 678, 680-82 (8th Cir.2012) (young males who have rejected or resisted gang recruitment do not constitute recognized particular social group; petitioner was no different than any other citizen who experienced gang violence).
The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The IJ also denied his applications for asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture, but those rulings are not before this court. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir.2004).