Radai Mendez Dominguez v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2589
___________________________
Radai Obed Mendez Dominguez
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: January 25, 2023
Filed: January 30, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Radai Obed Mendez Dominguez petitions for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for
withholding of removal and his request for voluntary departure.
Upon careful consideration of the petition and the record, we find no basis for
reversal. See Gathungu v. Holder, 725 F.3d 900, 907 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of
review). Mendez Dominguez did not challenge the BIA’s dispositive conclusion that
he failed to show the Guatemalan government would be unable or unwilling to
protect him from his alleged persecutors. See Coreas-Chavez v. Garland, 52 F.4th
413, 416 (8th Cir. 2022) (failure to meaningfully challenge determinative issue of
whether government was unable or unwilling to control persecution resulted in
waiver of argument); cf. Galloso v. Barr, 954 F.3d 1189, 1193 (8th Cir. 2020), as
amended (Apr. 15, 2020) (burden of proof is on petitioner to establish eligibility for
relief; petitioner failed to show Mexican government was unable or unwilling to
protect her based on country reports and testimony that she did not and would not
contact police). As to the denial of voluntary departure, Mendez Dominguez
identifies no question of law or constitutional claim on appeal. See Puc-Ruiz v.
Holder, 629 F.3d 771, 782 (8th Cir. 2010) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review
discretionary denial of voluntary departure unless denial raises colorable question of
law or constitutional claim).
The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-