[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APR 5, 2007
No. 06-15138 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency Nos. A78-956-585
A79-044-446
ASDRUVAL VELASQUEZ-FUNEZ,
ALBA NUNEZ CABRERA,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(April 5, 2007)
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Asdruval Velasquez-Funez and Alba Nunez Cabrera petition for review of
the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that affirmed without opinion
the order of the Immigration Judge denying them asylum, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1);
withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); and relief under the United Nations
Convention Against Torture. Velasquez-Funez and Cabrera argue that the IJ
erroneously denied their petitions for asylum and withholding of removal because
Velasquez-Funez, a former Honduran police officer, is a member of a social group
on account of which they both have been persecuted and would again be
persecuted if returned to Honduras. We deny their petition.
The petitioners’ burden before the IJ is settled. To be eligible for asylum, an
applicant must establish that he or she is unable or unwilling to return to his or her
home 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). To qualify for withholding of
removal, an alien must establish that it is more likely than not that his or her life or
freedom would be threatened on account of his or her race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion if returned to his or
her country of origin. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).
Velasquez-Funez and Cabrera argue that they qualify for asylum and
withholding of removal because they have been and would be persecuted on
account of Velasquez-Funez’s membership in a particular social group—that of
2
former Honduran police officers. Velasquez-Funez and Cabrera testified before
the IJ that they were pursued and threatened by members of a gang after
Velasquez-Funez responded to a shoot-out in which members of the gang were
involved, and would continue to be pursued and threatened by the gang should
they be removed to Honduras. This argument fails.
Our review of the interpretations by the BIA of statutes it is tasked with
implementing “is informed by the principles of deference articulated in Chevron,
U.S.A., Inc., v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct.
2778, 81 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1984),” which requires that we uphold any interpretation of
the BIA that is reasonable. Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1190, 1195
(11th Cir. 2006). We have upheld as reasonable the interpretation of the BIA of
the phrase “particular social group” as excluding “a former police officer” who
offers nothing more than that he was “singled out for reprisal, not because of his
status as a former police officer, but because of his role in disrupting particular
criminal activity.” Id. at 1194 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). For
that reason, Velasquez-Funez and Cabrera’s applications for asylum and
withholding of removal are denied.
Because Velasquez-Funez and Cabrera make no arguments on appeal
regarding their applications for relief under the Convention Against Torture, they
have abandoned that issue. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228
3
n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).
Velasquez-Funez and Cabrera’s petition for review is
DENIED.
4