eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 2023-03

Wilber Rodriguez-Jerez v. Merrick B. Garland ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2405
___________________________
Wilber Antonio Rodriguez-Jerez
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: February 23, 2023
Filed: March 2, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Wilber Rodriguez-Jerez, a citizen of El Salvador, applied for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
An immigration judge denied his application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) dismissed his appeal. Rodriguez-Jerez petitions for review.
Rodriguez-Jerez challenges only the denial of asylum and withholding of
removal, so we conclude that his CAT claim is waived. See Chay-Velasquez v.
Ashcroft,
    367 F.3d 751
    , 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (claim not raised or meaningfully argued
in opening brief is waived). We also conclude that he has waived review of his
asylum and withholding-of-removal claims because he has failed to meaningfully
challenge the agency’s reasons for denying them. See, e.g., Coreas-Chavez v.
Garland,
    52 F.4th 413
    , 416 (8th Cir. 2022); Hassan v. Rosen,
    985 F.3d 587
    , 590 n.1
(8th Cir. 2021); Njoroge v. Sessions,
    709 Fed. Appx. 380
    , 380 & n.1, 381 (8th Cir.
2017) (per curiam).
Even if Rodriguez-Jerez had not waived review, substantial evidence supported
the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. See Cano v. Barr,
    956 F.3d 1034
    ,
1038 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review). He did not demonstrate harm rising to the
extreme level of persecution, or an objectively reasonable fear of persecution, and
these determinations, alone, provided an independent reason for denying his asylum
application. See id. at 1039, 1040 n.4; Lemus-Arita v. Sessions,
    854 F.3d 476
    , 482
(8th Cir. 2017); Garcia-Colindres v. Holder,
    700 F.3d 1153
    , 1157, 1158 (8th Cir.
2012). Because his asylum claim failed, he necessarily failed to meet the higher
burden of proof for withholding of removal. See Cano, 956 F.3d at 1040.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
______________________________
-2-