[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 25, 2010
No. 09-15968 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A094-828-243
ROBERTO CLEMENTE GOMEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(October 25, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON, BLACK and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Roberto Clemente Gomez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for
review of the order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the
decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ’s decision denied withholding of
removal.* No reversible error has been shown; we deny the petition.
We review only the decision of the BIA except to the extent that the BIA
expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Mehmeti v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 572 F.3d 1196,
1199 (11th Cir. 2009). Insofar as the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning in affirming its
decision, we review those aspects of the IJ’s decision as well. Id.
We review legal determinations de novo. Id. And we review fact
determinations under the “highly deferential” substantial evidence test: we must
affirm the BIA’s decision if it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and
probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Id. (citation omitted).
Thus, we may reverse “only when the record compels a reversal; the mere fact that
the record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of
the administrative findings.” Id. (citation omitted).
To qualify for withholding of removal, an alien must demonstrate that, if
removed, it is more likely than not that his life or freedom would be threatened on
*
Gomez abandons review of the portion of the decision denying asylum as untimely and
relief under the Convention Against Torture because he offers no arguments on these claims.
See Sepulveda v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that
petitioner abandons an issue by failing to offer argument on that issue).
2
account of a protected ground, including political opinion. Silva v. U.S. Attorney
Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1243 (11th Cir. 2006); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). “If
the applicant can show that the persecution was, at least in part, motivated by a
protected ground, then the applicant can establish eligibility for withholding of
removal.” Tan v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 2006).
Gomez sought relief because he had been targeted by gangs in Nicaragua.
Gang members first stopped Gomez and robbed him of his money. A few months
later, gang members again approached Gomez and attacked him when he told them
he had no money with him. Gomez filed a criminal complaint; and the police
arrested two gang members. But these gang members later were released because
no witnesses came forward and insufficient evidence existed to prosecute the gang
members. Later, one of the arrested gang members threatened Gomez because he
had gone to the police.
The IJ concluded that Gomez presented no evidence to suggest that the
motivation of the gangs to target Gomez was in any significant part motivated by
one of the protected grounds. The BIA agreed that Gomez had presented
insufficient evidence of a nexus between his experiences and an enumerated
ground and noted that Gomez was the victim of criminal activity and related
3
revenge. On appeal, Gomez challenges the nexus conclusion, maintaining that his
opposition to the gangs was illustrative of his political opinion.
Here, the record simply does not compel the conclusion that Gomez was
mistreated by gang members on account of a statutorily protected ground; and
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision. The gang first targeted Gomez
to rob him of his belongings for their own personal gain: evidence of mere criminal
activity. Such evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion of persecution on a
protected ground. See Ruiz v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1258 (11th Cir.
2006) (“evidence that either is consistent with acts of private violence . . . or that
merely shows that a person has been the victim of criminal activity, does not
constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground”).
That Gomez reported the gang to the police and the gang later targeted him
because of his report does not demonstrate persecution based on political opinion.
We have concluded that people who are harmed or targeted merely for resisting or
refusing to cooperate with armed gangs are not being persecuted because of a
political opinion. See Sanchez v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 392 F.3d 434, 438 (11th Cir.
2004) (“[p]urely personal retribution is . . . not persecution on account” of a
protected ground). Gomez testified that he was part of no political groups and
4
presented no other evidence to indicate that the gang’s interest in him was
motivated by anything other than personal retribution.
Because Gomez failed to make the necessary showing that it was more likely
than not a protected ground was at least part of the gang’s motivation to persecute
him, he is unentitled to withholding of removal.
PETITION DENIED.
5