Victor Cardona-Gomez v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                 United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 22-2767
    ___________________________
    Victor Hugo Cardona-Gomez
    Petitioner
    v.
    Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States
    Respondent
    ____________
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    ____________
    Submitted: February 7, 2023
    Filed: February 10, 2023
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Guatemalan citizen Victor Hugo Cardona-Gomez petitions for review of an
    order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Having jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    , this court denies the petition.
    The BIA dismissed Cardona-Gomez’s appeal from the decision of an
    immigration judge denying his request for asylum and withholding of removal
    relief.1 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Cardona-Gomez
    was not eligible for asylum, because he did not establish past persecution or a well-
    founded fear of future persecution. See Malonga v. Mukasey, 
    546 F.3d 546
    , 550 (8th
    Cir. 2008) (standard of review); Menjivar v. Gonzales, 
    416 F.3d 918
    , 920 (8th Cir.
    2005), as corrected (Sept. 21, 2005) (asylum eligibility requirements); see also Cano
    v. Barr, 
    956 F.3d 1034
    , 1039 (8th Cir. 2020) (persecution involves infliction or
    credible threat of death, torture, or injury; it is an extreme concept that excludes low-
    level intimidation and harassment) (citations and quotations omitted); La v. Holder,
    
    701 F.3d 566
    , 572 (8th Cir. 2012) (a well-founded fear of future persecution is both
    subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable).
    Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal
    relief. See Guled v. Mukasey, 
    515 F.3d 872
    , 881-82 (8th Cir. 2008) (noncitizen who
    does not meet standard for asylum cannot meet more rigorous clear probability
    standard for withholding of removal).
    The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    1
    The denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture is not before this
    panel. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 
    367 F.3d 751
    , 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (claim
    not raised in opening brief is waived).
    -2-