Opinion ID: 4549619
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Withholding-of-removal claim

Text: Skripkov also challenges the IJ’s statement that “[b]ecause respondent has failed to show the lesser relief for asylum, he has also failed to show that he would be entitled to withholding of removal under the Act.” According to Skripkov, the IJ erred in applying the asylum statute’s “one central reason” standard, stated in 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), to his withholding-ofremoval claim. But the IJ could alternatively have determined that Skripkov’s withholding-ofremoval claim automatically failed because withholding of removal requires a showing of a “clear probability” of persecution—a more stringent standard than for asylum claims. See Allabani v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 668, 675 (6th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). We find no indication in the record that the IJ based his determination on the “one central reason” standard. To the extent that the IJ did rely on the asylum statute’s “one central reason” standard, however, the IJ will, on remand, have to take into account this court’s recent decision in Guzman-Vazquez v. Barr, No. 19-3417 (6th Cir. May 18, 2020), holding that the “one central reason” standard does not apply to withholding-of-removal claims.