Victor Cardona-Gomez v. Merrick Garland

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-2767

___________________________

Victor Hugo Cardona-Gomez

Petitioner

v.

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

Respondent

____________

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

____________

Submitted: February 7, 2023 Filed: February 10, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Victor Hugo Cardona-Gomez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition.

The BIA dismissed Cardona-Gomez’s appeal from the decision of an immigration judge denying his request for asylum and withholding of removal relief.1 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Cardona-Gomez was not eligible for asylum, because he did not establish past persecution or a well- founded fear of future persecution. See Malonga v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 546, 550 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918, 920 (8th Cir. 2005), as corrected (Sept. 21, 2005) (asylum eligibility requirements); see also Cano v. Barr, 956 F.3d 1034, 1039 (8th Cir. 2020) (persecution involves infliction or credible threat of death, torture, or injury; it is an extreme concept that excludes lowlevel intimidation and harassment) (citations and quotations omitted); La v. Holder, 701 F.3d 566, 572 (8th Cir. 2012) (a well-founded fear of future persecution is both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal relief. See Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872, 881-82 (8th Cir. 2008) (noncitizen who does not meet standard for asylum cannot meet more rigorous clear probability standard for withholding of removal).

The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture is not before this panel. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (claim not raised in opening brief is waived).