MEJIA v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-07-27No. No. 21-1254

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied.

Pedro Mejia, a Guatemalan national, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal challenging an immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. The court rejected Mejia's jurisdictional argument regarding his Notice to Appear, finding it foreclosed by prior precedent. The court also found that Mejia had waived his asylum claim by conceding its untimeliness and failing to challenge that determination on appeal, and that it lacked jurisdiction to review asylum denials in any event.

On the merits, the court determined that substantial evidence supported the denial of withholding of removal because Mejia failed to demonstrate by clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened in Guatemala on account of a protected ground. The immigration agency found that Mejia's aggressors were motivated by financial gain rather than his race or membership in a particular social group, and the record did not compel a different conclusion. The court similarly found no error in denying Convention Against Torture protection, as Mejia's claim rested on the same factual foundation as his other rejected claims.

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

Key issues

Whether the immigration court acquired jurisdiction despite alleged deficiency in the Notice to Appear
Whether an untimely asylum application claim was properly waived
Whether substantial evidence supported denial of withholding of removal based on lack of nexus to protected grounds
Whether Convention Against Torture protection was properly denied

Procedural posture

Mejia petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Guatemalan native and citizen Pedro Mejia petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

As a preliminary matter, we conclude this courts precedent forecloses Mejias argument, based on Pereira v. Sessions, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 201 L.Ed.2d 433 (2018), that the immigration court never acquired jurisdiction over his proceedings because his Notice to Appear was deficient. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2019). Moreover, to the extent Mejia intended to seek review of the denial of his asylum application, we may not review that challenge. He conceded during his counseled proceedings before the immigration judge that his application was untimely, the immigration judge found that it was untimely, and the BIA concluded he waived the claim by not challenging it on appeal. See Chak Yiu Lui v. Holder, 600 F.3d 980, 984 (8th Cir. 2010). Even if he had exhausted the claim, we would lack jurisdiction to review it. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3); Purwantono v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 822, 823-24 (8th Cir. 2007).

We further conclude substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal, as Mejia failed to establish by a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened in Guatemala because of a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Silvestre-Giron v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1114, 1117, 1119 & n.3 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review). The agency determined Mejia failed to demonstrate the requisite nexus because his aggressors were motivated by monetary gain, not by his indigenous race or proposed particular social groups. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Garcia-Moctezuma v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 863, 868-69 (8th Cir. 2018); Marroquin-Ochoma v. Holder, 574 F.3d 574, 577 (8th Cir. 2009). Because this determination provided a sufficient basis for denying Mejias withholding of removal claim, we do not consider his other arguments. See Baltti v. Sessions, 878 F.3d 240, 245 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). Finally, we discern no error in the agencys denial of CAT protection because Mejia based his claim on the same facts as his other claims. See Ming Ming Wijono v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 868, 874 (8th Cir. 2006).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

PER CURIAM.