QUINILLA PU v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-09-02No. No. 20-3236

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied.

Two Guatemalan nationals sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture before an immigration judge, who denied all three forms of relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that denial. On judicial review, the petitioners challenged the agency's jurisdiction and the merits of the adverse findings. The court rejected the jurisdictional challenge as foreclosed by prior precedent and found no error in the agency's determination that the petitioners failed to link any claimed persecution to a protected ground required for asylum eligibility. The court similarly upheld the agency's conclusion that the petitioners did not meet the demanding standard for Convention Against Torture protection, which requires proof of severe pain inflicted by or with the consent of a government official. The petitioners also raised a particular social group argument for the first time on appeal, which the court declined to consider under the exhaustion requirement.

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

Key issues

Whether asylum applicants established nexus between persecution and protected ground
Whether applicants qualified for withholding of removal
Whether applicants satisfied Convention Against Torture protection standards
Whether jurisdictional challenge was foreclosed by precedent
Whether new arguments may be raised for first time on appeal

Procedural posture

The Eighth Circuit reviewed a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing the petitioners' appeal from 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[Unpublished]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 citizens Enrique Quinilla-Pu and Juan Quinilla-Sic (collectively, the Quinillas) petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed their appeal from the decision of an immigration judge denying them asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition.

This court concludes that the Quinillass challenge to the agencys jurisdiction over their removal proceedings is foreclosed by this courts precedent. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2019). The court finds no error in the agencys determination that the Quinillas were ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because they did not establish a nexus between any persecution and a protected ground. See De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375, 379 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872, 881 (8th Cir. 2008) (noncitizen who does not meet standard for asylum cannot meet higher “clear probability” standard for withholding of removal); Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918, 920 (8th Cir. 2005), as corrected (Sept. 21, 2005) (asylum eligibility requirements); see also Martinez-Galarza v. Holder, 782 F.3d 990, 993-94 (8th Cir. 2015) (alleged harm motivated by personal retribution is not valid basis for asylum claim).

Substantial evidence also supports the agencys conclusion that the Quinillas were not eligible for CAT protection. See Martin Martin v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1141, 1145 (8th Cir. 2019) (under the CAT, noncitizen must show severe pain or suffering inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity). The court declines to consider any argument concerning a proposed particular social group presented for the first time on appeal. See Agha v. Holder, 743 F.3d 609, 616 (8th Cir. 2014) (noncitizens may only appeal issues exhausted at administrative level).

The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. The motion for summary disposition is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM.