LEMUS CARPIO v. ROSEN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-01-20No. No. 20-2104

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied.

Ana Lissette Lemus-Carpio, a Salvadoran citizen, sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to uphold an immigration judge's denial of her asylum and withholding of removal claims. The court examined whether she had established a well-founded fear of persecution based on a protected ground, which is required for asylum eligibility. The court found that substantial evidence supported the agency's determinations that she failed to meet the asylum standard and, consequently, could not satisfy the more demanding threshold for withholding of removal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether petitioner established a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected ground for asylum
Whether petitioner met the clear probability standard for withholding of removal
Sufficiency of evidence supporting agency's asylum and withholding determinations

Procedural posture

The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Lemus-Carpio's appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying asylum and withholding of removal, and she petitioned for judicial review.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Salvadoran citizen Ana Lissette Lemus-Carpio 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.

Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition.

This court concludes that substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that Lemus-Carpio was not eligible for asylum, because she did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. See Kanagu v. Holder, 781 F.3d 912, 916 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review); Litvinov v. Holder, 605 F.3d 548, 553 (8th Cir. 2010) (asylum requirements). Substantial evidence also supports the agencys conclusion that Lemus-Carpio was not eligible for withholding-of-removal relief. See Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872, 881-82 (8th Cir. 2008) (alien who does not meet standard for asylum cannot meet more rigorous clear probability standard for withholding of removal). The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FOOTNOTES

. The denial of voluntary departure 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).

PER CURIAM.