Esperanza Cardona-Arana v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., No. 11-2668 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Petition for Review - immigration. Substantial evidence supports BIA's determination that petitioner had not sufficiently established past persecution or well-founded fear of future persecution.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-2668 ___________ Esperanza Cardona-Arana; Oldin * Edilsa Garcia-Cardona; Azucely Noemi * Garcia-Cardona, * * Petitioners, * * Petition for Review of an v. * Order of the * Board of Immigration Appeals. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General * of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. * ___________ Submitted: February 28, 2012 Filed: March 1, 2012 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan citizens Esperanza Cardona-Arana and her daughters Oldin Edilsa Garcia-Cardona and Azucely Noemi Garcia-Cardona petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an immigration judge s denial of their application for asylum.1 We conclude that substantial evidence 1 Petitioners also requested withholding of removal, but no longer pursue that request. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (appellant waives claim that is not meaningfully raised in opening brief). supports the BIA s determinations that petitioners had not sufficiently established past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Malonga v. Holder, 621 F.3d 757, 766 (8th Cir. 2010) (threats that are non-specific or lacking in immediacy do not support finding of persecution; harm arising from general conditions such as civil war or mob violence will not ordinarily support claim of persecution); Cubillos v. Holder, 565 F.3d 1054, 1057-58 (8th Cir. 2009) (threats in form of two anonymous phone calls and two anonymous letters over 4-year period, without more and in absence of evidence of who was responsible and their motives, were not sufficiently severe to constitute past persecution or to be objectively reasonable grounds for well-founded fear of future persecution); Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775, 781 (8th Cir. 2008) (denial of asylum is reviewed for substantial evidence). In addition, we conclude that it is unnecessary to review the remaining issues raised by petitioners. Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
