Case: 11-60562 Document: 00511884215 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 12, 2012
No. 11-60562
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
WILMER AQUIMIR-MALDONADO,
Petitioner
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A088 054 647
Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Wilmer Aquimir-Maldonado petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an order of the
immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for withholding of removal under
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). He contends that he has established
a clear probability of persecution on account of his membership in a particular
social group, specifically, his family. Aquimir-Maldonado relies on evidence that
his cousin, Alfonso Arias, killed Aquimir-Maldonado’s father, who was a
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 11-60562 Document: 00511884215 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2012
No. 11-60562
successful rancher, and that Arias has also made threats against Aquimir-
Maldonado’s mother.
To qualify for withholding of removal under the INA, an alien “must
demonstrate a ‘clear probability’ of persecution upon return.” Roy v. Ashcroft,
389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004). “A ‘clear probability’ means that it is more
likely than not that the applicant’s life or freedom would be threatened by
persecution on account of either his race, religion, nationality, membership in
a particular social group, or political opinion.” Id. The alien must prove some
nexus between the persecution and one of the five enumerated statutory
grounds. See Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 345 (5th Cir. 2006).
We will uphold the BIA’s factual findings if the findings are supported by
substantial evidence. Silwany-Rodriguez v. INS, 975 F.2d 1157, 1160 (5th Cir.
1992). “The applicant has the burden of showing that the evidence is so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.”
Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). We review the BIA’s
resolution of questions of law de novo, giving “considerable deference to the
BIA’s interpretation of the legislative scheme it is entrusted to administer.” Zhu
v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Where the BIA’s decision depends on the factual findings of the IJ, we will
review the IJ’s findings to the extent that they influenced or were relied on by
the BIA. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). The question whether an
alien has demonstrated the requisite nexus between persecution and one of the
enumerated grounds is an issue of fact reviewed for substantial evidence. See
Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350–51 (5th Cir. 2002).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Arias acted
out of jealousy over the success and wealth of Aquimir-Maldonado’s father, or
because he wanted to obtain that wealth. Indeed, Aquimir-Maldonado testified
before the IJ that Arias had killed his father out of a desire to obtain his things
2
Case: 11-60562 Document: 00511884215 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/12/2012
No. 11-60562
and that Arias wanted to kill his mother in order to obtain her things. Such
motivations, which involve purely personal matters, rather than persecution on
account of one of the statutorily enumerated grounds, are insufficient to support
a claim for relief. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 190 (5th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3