UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1176
JUAN OCTAVIO RAMOS-GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 22, 2011 Decided: November 10, 2011
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Seguinót, SEGUINÓT & ASSOCIATES, PC, Dunn Loring, Virginia,
for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S.
Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, Michele Y. F. Sarko, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Octavio Ramos-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of
Nicaragua, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s order denying his applications for
withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.
To establish eligibility for withholding of removal,
an alien must show a clear probability that, if he was removed
to his native country, his “life or freedom would be threatened”
on a protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2006); see
Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). A “clear
probability” means that it is more likely than not that the
alien would be subject to persecution. INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S.
407, 429-30 (1984). Persecution “involves the infliction or
threat of death, torture, or injury to one’s person or
freedom[.]” Qiao Hua Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177 (4th
Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Persecution is
an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment
that our society regards as offensive.” Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted). Withholding of removal is mandatory for anyone
whose establishes that their “life or freedom would be
threatened . . . because of [their] race, religion, nationality,
2
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2006).
A determination regarding eligibility for withholding
of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on
the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of fact are
conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled
to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006).
Legal issues are reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate
deference to the BIA’s interpretation of the INA and any
attendant regulations[.]” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685,
691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This court will reverse the Board only
if “the evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v.
INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Because the Board
affirmed the immigration judge’s order and supplemented it, both
decisions are subject to judicial review. Niang v. Gonzales,
492 F.3d 505, 511 n.8 (4th Cir. 2007).
Ramos-Gonzalez based his claim on his membership in a
particular social group: Nicaraguan homosexuals. The
immigration judge found Ramos-Gonzalez was credible and that he
was a member of that particular social group. The immigration
judge denied withholding from removal on the basis that Ramos-
3
Gonzalez did not show that it was more likely than not that he
will be persecuted in Nicaragua because of his membership in a
particular social group.
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the
immigration judge’s and the Board’s findings and the record does
not compel a different result. The evidence shows that
homosexuality was decriminalized in Nicaragua in 2008 and that
the government is making attempts to prevent discrimination
based on sexual orientation. We note that the record is very
short of any evidence that homosexuals in Ramos-Gonzalez’s
position are facing a threat of persecution or that the
Nicaraguan government is unwilling or unable to protect
homosexuals. While the record does show that homosexuals in
Nicaragua are discriminated against in education, housing and
employment, there is no evidence that such discrimination rises
to the level of economic persecution. Economic penalties may
rise to the level of persecution only if the sanctions “are
sufficiently harsh to constitute a threat to life or freedom.”
Qiao Hua Li, 405 F.3d at 177 (internal quotation marks omitted). *
*
Ramos-Gonzalez has waived review of the immigration
judge’s decision denying relief under the CAT. The Board noted
that he did not raise a challenge to that finding on appeal. We
note that he does not contest that in this petition for review.
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006), “[a] court may review
a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted
all administrative remedies available to the alien as of
(Continued)
4
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
right[.]” This court has noted that “an alien who has failed to
raise claims during an appeal to the [Board] has waived his
right to raise those claims before a federal court on appeal of
the [Board’s] decision.” Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 697, 700
(4th Cir. 1990). Moreover, this court has held that it lacks
jurisdiction to consider an argument not made before the Board.
Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004).
5