United States v. June Garcia

1Eric H. Holder, Jr., has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the
United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 43(c).
2Velasquez-Domingo also purports to challenge the IJ’s denial of relief under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT), but he did not raise a CAT claim below, and
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-1923
___________
Domingo Velasquez-Domingo, *
*
Petitioner, *
* Petition for Review of
v. * an Order of the Board
* of Immigration Appeals.
Eric H. Holder, Jr., 1 Attorney General *
of the United States, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Respondent. *
___________
Submitted: June 5, 2009
Filed: June 9, 2009
___________
Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Domingo Velasquez-Domingo petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed an immigration
judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal.2

-- 1 of 2 --

he does not now assert that the IJ erred by not considering his asylum application as
raising a CAT claim, see Halabi v. Ashcroft, 316 F.3d 807, 808 (8th Cir. 2003) (per
curiam) (issues not raised in appeal brief are waived).
-2-
Having carefully reviewed the record, we deny the petition. See Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales,
411 F.3d 977, 982-83 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that
Velasquez-Domingo did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of a protected ground. See Lengkong v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d
859, 863 (8th Cir. 2007) (incidents of random isolated violence did not compel finding
of persecution); Gomez v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 543, 545-47 (8th Cir. 2005) (record
must compel finding that protected ground motivated persecutors’ actions); Alyas v.
Gonzales, 419 F.3d 756, 760-61 (8th Cir. 2005) (to establish persecution when harm
was inflicted by private individual, asylum applicant must show that government was
unwilling or unable to protect him). Velasquez-Domingo’s claim for withholding of
removal--which carries a more rigorous burden of proof--necessarily fails as well. See
Makatengkeng v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 876, 885 (8th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we deny the petition.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --