Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wagner Monterroso Divas v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, 17-1089 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 17-1089 Visitors: 34
Filed: Oct. 30, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-1089 _ Wagner A. Monterroso Divas lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent _ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals _ Submitted: October 24, 2017 Filed: October 30, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Wagner A. Monterroso Divas challenges the Board of Immigration
More
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 17-1089
                        ___________________________

                           Wagner A. Monterroso Divas

                             lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

                                           v.

         Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States

                            lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
                                    ____________

                      Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: October 24, 2017
                             Filed: October 30, 2017
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                       ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Wagner A. Monterroso Divas challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals
denial of withholding of removal. Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), this
court denies the petition for review.
       Divas argues that as a former pharmaceutical delivery driver, he is a member
of a discrete social group in Guatemala. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). This court
declines to reach that issue but addresses an alternative, independently sufficient
reason the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled against him: he did not prove the
persecution he claims to have suffered at the hands of gang members was attributable
to the Guatemalan government. See, e.g., Menjivar v. Gonzales, 
416 F.3d 918
, 921
(8th Cir. 2005) (“The BIA has adopted, and we have approved as reasonable, a
definition of ‘persecution’ that requires a harm to be inflicted either by the
government of a country or by persons or an organization that the government was
unable or unwilling to control.” (quotation and brackets omitted)).

      The petition for review is denied.
                       ______________________________




                                        -2-

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer