Gladys Linares Suchite v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2023
• Docket: 22-1577
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1577 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1577

GLADYS PATRICIA LINARES SUCHITE; DAGOBERTO MOLINA PAZ; SANDRA PATRICIA MOLINA LINARES; D.M.L.,

Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: March 16, 2023 Decided: March 20, 2023

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioners. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Joanna L. Watson, Senior Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1577 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Gladys Patricia Linares Suchite, her minor son, D.M.L., 1 her daughter, Sandra

Patricia Molina Linares (Sandra), and the father of her children, Dagoberto Molina Paz

(collectively “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing their appeal from the immigration

judge’s decision denying Petitioners’ consolidated applications for asylum and

withholding of removal. 2 We deny the petition for review.

We have reviewed the administrative record, including the transcript of the merits

hearing and all supporting evidence, and considered the arguments pressed on appeal in

conjunction with the record and the relevant authorities. We conclude that the record

evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings,

particularly as related to Sandra’s individual claim for relief, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B),

and that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s dispositive ruling, affirmed

by the Board, that neither Ms. Linares Suchite nor Mr. Molina Paz established the requisite

nexus between a protected ground and the asserted past persecution or the feared future

persecution, see Velasquez v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 188, 195-96 (4th Cir. 2017) (reiterating

1 D.M.L. was a rider on Ms. Linares Suchite’s application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3). 2 Save for providing the relevant standards and a summary claim of entitlement for relief, Petitioners’ brief does not provide any argument related to the agency’s denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Accordingly, this issue is waived. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Cortez-Mendez v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 205, 208 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining that petitioner’s failure to address the denial of CAT relief waives the issue).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1577 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

the established principle that “the asylum statute was not intended as a panacea for the

numerous personal altercations that invariably characterize . . . social relationships” and

distinguishing the type of personally motivated conflicts that generally “fall[ ] outside the

scope of asylum protection” (cleaned up)). See also Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d

817, 824-26 (4th Cir. 2020) (explaining that, in conducting substantial evidence review of

the agency’s nexus determination, this court “is limited to considering whether their

conclusion is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence,” and holding

that, under this standard, the record did not compel a conclusion contrary to the agency’s

ruling that petitioner failed to satisfy the nexus element (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.

See In re Linares Suchite (B.I.A. Apr. 28, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED