United States v. Jermaine Clay

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1650
___________________________
Ruben Gallegos-Trevizo
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
v.
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: December 4, 2024
Filed: December 9, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Mexican citizen Ruben Gallegos-Trevizo petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA dismissed his appeal from the

-- 1 of 3 --

decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying his claims for withholding of removal
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1
Upon careful consideration, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that Gallegos-Trevizo was not entitled to withholding of
removal, because he did not establish a clear probability that his life or freedom
would be threatened because of a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A);
Alvarez-Gomez v. Garland, 56 F.4th 582, 588 (8th Cir. 2022) (noncitizen may show
clear probability that life or freedom would be threatened either by showing past
persecution, or by showing it is “more likely than not” he would be persecuted upon
removal regardless of past persecution); see also Calvo-Tino v. Garland, 107 F.4th
861, 865 (8th Cir. 2024) (decisions on withholding of removal are reviewed for
substantial evidence). Specifically, we agree with the agency that Gallegos-Trevizo’s
proposed particular social group, “returning deportees from the United States,” was
not cognizable, and that he established neither past persecution, nor a clear
probability of future persecution, on account of his membership in a protected group.
See Cano v. Barr, 956 F.3d 1034, 1038 (8th Cir. 2020) (persecution involves
infliction or credible threat of death, torture, or injury, on account of a protected
characteristic; it is an extreme concept that excludes low-level intimidation and
harassment); Miranda v. Sessions, 892 F.3d 940, 943 (8th Cir. 2018) (requirements
to establish valid proposed particular social group; whether proposed group is
cognizable is a question of law, reviewed de novo). Substantial evidence also
supports the denial of CAT relief. See Calvo-Tino, 107 F.4th at 865 (standard of
review); Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872, 881-82 (8th Cir. 2008) (separate analysis
1The denial of asylum and any challenge to the IJ’s decision regarding
Gallegos-Trevizo’s alternative proposed particular social group, “Mexicans who are
perceived to be opposed to drug cartels and/or criminal organization,” are not before
the panel. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (where
claim is not raised or meaningfully argued in opening brief, it is deemed waived).
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

for CAT claim is required only when there is evidence noncitizen may be tortured for
reasons unrelated to withholding of removal claim).
The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --