Eulalia Tino-De La Cruz v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: September 13, 2024
• Docket: 24-1642
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-1642 ___________________________

Eulalia Lourdes Tino-De La Cruz; P.M.Z.T.

Petitioners

v.

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

Respondent ____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________

Submitted: September 10, 2024 Filed: September 13, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRASZ, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Eulalia Lourdes Tino-De La Cruz, on behalf of herself and her child, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A)–(B), challenges the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. We have already rejected the argument that a deficient notice to appear deprives the immigration court of jurisdiction. See Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 709 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam); see also id. at 709 n.2 (concluding that Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (2021), “d[id] not . . . disturb[] our jurisdiction-related precedent”). And substantial evidence supports the conclusion that any persecution she suffered or fears is not “on account of [her] membership in a particular social group.”1 Martinez-Galarza v. Holder, 782 F.3d 990, 993 (8th Cir. 2015) (explaining the standard of review and what sorts of persecution qualify). We accordingly deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

1 Given this conclusion, it is unnecessary to address the other arguments she raises. See Tino, 13 F.4th at 710; see also Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (discussing waiver). -2-