Juana Gonzalez-Raymundo v. Merrick Garland

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2395
___________________________
Juana Claudia Gonzalez-Raymundo
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 14, 2023
Filed: February 17, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Juana Claudia Gonzalez-Raymundo petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed her appeal from
the decision of an immigration judge denying her asylum and withholding of
removal.1
Upon careful consideration, we conclude substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that Gonzalez-Raymundo was not eligible for asylum because
she did not establish she had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of
a protected ground. See Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918, 920 (8th Cir. 2005), as
corrected (Sept. 21, 2005) (asylum eligibility requirements); Malonga v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 546, 550 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); see also Garcia-Moctezuma
v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 863, 869 (8th Cir. 2018) (this court will reverse only if it
determines that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the petitioner’s
proposed protected ground “actually and sufficiently motivated his persecutors
actions”); Alyas v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 756, 761 (8th Cir. 2005) (reasonableness of
a fear of future persecution is diminished when family members remain in the native
country unharmed). The court also concludes that substantial evidence supports the
agency’s denial of withholding-of-removal relief. See Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d
872, 881-82 (8th Cir. 2008).
The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1
Gonzalez-Raymundo does not challenge the denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture, or the agency’s determination that she failed to establish
past persecution on account of a protected ground. Accordingly, any challenges have
been waived. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004)
(where claim is not raised or meaningfully argued in opening brief, it is deemed
waived).
-2-