UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2245
ELDER A. RUIZ-TOVAR,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the
United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A98-350-312)
Submitted: June 21, 2006 Decided: July 20, 2006
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michele Pistone, VILLANOVA SCHOOL OF LAW, Villanova, Pennsylvania,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director, Margaret Perry, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Shahira M. Tadross, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Elder Antonio Ruiz-Tovar, a native and citizen of
Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“Board”) order adopting the immigration judge’s decision
denying Ruiz-Tovar’s applications for asylum and withholding from
removal. Ruiz-Tovar contends he suffered past persecution and has
a well founded fear of persecution as a result of his membership in
the particular social group of persons with intimate knowledge of
the Pata-Cuta drug ring and who are perceived as disloyal and
untrustworthy by members of that organization. We deny the
petition for review.
The INA authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum
on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2000). It defines a refugee
as a person unwilling or unable to return to his native country
“because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on
account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)
(2000).
An applicant can establish refugee status based on past
persecution on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1) (2005). “An applicant who demonstrates that he was
the subject of past persecution is presumed to have a well-founded
fear of persecution.” Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th
Cir. 2004). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can
- 2 -
establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected ground.
Id., 371 F.3d at 187. An applicant has the burden of demonstrating
his eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2005);
Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 541 (4th Cir. 1999).
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is conclusive if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). To the extent the
Board’s decision was based on a legal determination, review is de
novo. Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 446 F.3d 1190, 1195 (11th
Cir. 2006).
The Board has defined a “persecution on account of
membership in a particular social group” within the meaning of the
INA to mean “persecution that is directed toward an individual who
is a member of a group of persons all of whom share a common,
immutable characteristic . . . one that the members of the group
either cannot change, or should not be required to change because
it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences.”
Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 233-34 (B.I.A. 1985),
overruled on other grounds by Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I. & N. Dec.
439 (B.I.A. 1987).
The phrase “particular social group” is without
definition. If the statute is silent or ambiguous as to the
definition of particular social group, the Board’s interpretation
- 3 -
of the statute will govern if it is reasonable. See Chevron v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984); see also
Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 268-69 (4th Cir. 2004).
We find the Board’s finding that Ruiz-Tovar did not
belong to a particular social group for asylum purposes was
reasonable. We further find substantial evidence supports the
Board’s findings that even if Ruiz-Tovar was the member of a
particular social group, he did not show past persecution or a
well-founded fear of persecution.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 4 -