Marco Alavez-Narvaez v. Jefferson B. Sessions, 692 F. App'x 804 (8th Cir. 2017). · Go Syfert
Marco Alavez-Narvaez v. Jefferson B. Sessions, 692 F. App'x 804 (8th Cir. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Teresa Martinez-Matute v. Merrick B. Garland (ca8, 2023-05-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Teresa Martinez-Matute v. Merrick B. Garland
8th Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
We have previously held that a petitioner does “not [have] a valid basis for an asylum claim” where the past or feared harm “is motivated by purely personal retribution.” Martinez-Galarza, 782 F.3d at 993 ; see also Rivas, 899 F.3d at 542 (“[T]he fact that a persecutor targets a family member simply as a means to an end is not, by itself, sufficient to establish a claim.” (quoting Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 40, 45 (BIA 2017)))1; Alavez-Narvaez v. Sessions, 692 F. App’x 804, 805 (8th Cir. 2017) (unpublished per curiam) (“We . . . conclude that [the petitioner] did not est…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marco Antonio ALAVEZ-NARVAEZ, Petitioner,
v.
Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
16-3288.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jul 13, 2017.
692 F. App'x 804
Marco Antonio Alavez-Narvaez, Pro Se, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Jennifer R. Khouri, Carl H. McIntyre, Russell John Verby, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Wollman, Colloton, Gruender.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Unpublished
PER CURIAM.

Mexican citizen Marco Alavez-Narvaez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing[*805] his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge denying him asylum and withholding of removal. In his pro se appeal, Alavez challenges the immigration judge’s findings' regarding the timeliness of his asylum application. He argues for the first time that he is a member of a particular social group whose members are sons of murdered gang leaders. And he claims that he had a well-founded fear of persecution, because the gang had the capability and inclination to punish him for trying to obtain information about his father’s death.

This court lacks jurisdiction to review both the timeliness of Alavez’s asylum application, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), and Alavez’s unexhausted argument claiming protected status based on his membership in a particular social group. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Martinez Carcamo v. Holder, 713 F.3d 916, 925 (8th Cir. 2013). We also conclude that Alavez did not establish a nexus between his feared harm and any protected ground, as his perceived threat was based on purely personal retribution. See Martinez-Galarza v. Holder, 782 F.3d 990, 993-94 (8th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.