Manuel Matias v. Merrick Garland

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-1214
___________________________
Manuel Tziquin Matias
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: October 19, 2022
Filed: February 27, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Manuel Tziquin Matias petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA rejected Tziquin Matias’s
jurisdictional arguments and affirmed an immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT).
After careful review, we conclude that Tziquin Matias’s challenge to the
agency’s jurisdiction over his removal proceedings based on his purportedly defective
Notice to Appear is foreclosed by this court’s precedent, see Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d
983, 985–86 (8th Cir. 2019); see also Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 709 n.2 (8th Cir.
2021) (per curiam), and that the immigration judge had jurisdiction to decide his
application, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(C); Garcia v. Barr, 960 F.3d 893, 894–96 (6th
Cir. 2020).
We also conclude substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum.
See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1). The record does not compel the
conclusion that Tziquin Matias demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear
of persecution. See Lemus-Arita v. Sessions, 854 F.3d 476, 481–83 (8th Cir. 2017)
(explaining that persecution is an extreme concept involving “the infliction or threat
of death, torture, or injury”; threats lacking in immediacy or unfulfilled threats of
physical injury are usually insufficient; and a fear that is too speculative is objectively
unreasonable); Barillas-Mendez v. Lynch, 790 F.3d 787, 789 (8th Cir. 2015)
(explaining that persecution excludes “minor beatings” and “low-level intimidation
and harassment”). Even if he had shown this, he failed to establish a nexus to a
protected ground because his proposed gang-based particular social group was not
cognizable, see Tino, 13 F.4th at 710; Mayorga-Rosa v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 379,
384–85 (8th Cir. 2018), and the record does not compel the conclusion that his
aggressors were or would be motivated by his indigenous tribal group of Quiche, see
Silvestre-Giron v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1114, 1119 & n.3 (8th Cir. 2020); Tino, 13 F.4th
at 710. The lack of a nexus to a protected ground was dispositive of his claim. See
Tino, 13 F.4th at 710; Miranda v. Sessions, 892 F.3d 940, 944 (8th Cir. 2018).
Because Tziquin Matias’s asylum claim fails, the agency properly concluded
he necessarily could not meet the more rigorous standard of proof for withholding of
removal. See Tino, 13 F.4th at 710. Finally, the agency did not err by denying his
-2-
CAT claim, which was based on the same allegations as his other claims. See Martin
Martin v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1141, 1145 (8th Cir. 2019).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-3-