Dominga Miranda Lorenzo v. William P. Barr, No. 18-3737 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Shepherd and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Substantial evidence supports the agency decision that petitioner is not entitled to asylum because she did not show that she was unable or unwilling to return to Guatemala due to persecution, or a well-founded fear of persecution, on account of a protected ground; petitioner's argument regarding economic persecution was unexhausted and would not be considered. [ September 09, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3737 ___________________________ Dominga Miranda Lorenzo; Tomasa Ciprian Miranda lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners v. William P. Barr lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: September 3, 2019 Filed: September 10, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan citizen Dominga Miranda Lorenzo, individually and on behalf of her minor daughter Tomasa Ciprian Miranda, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed her appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying her request for asylum.1 Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition. This court concludes that substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Miranda Lorenzo was not entitled to asylum. She did not show that she was unable or unwilling to return to Guatemala due to persecution, or a wellfounded fear of future persecution, on account of a protected ground. See Mayorga-Rosa v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 379, 381-82 (8th Cir. 2018) (asylum requirements); Malonga v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 546, 550 (8th Cir. 2008) (questions of immigration law are reviewed de novo; factual findings will not be reversed unless petitioner shows evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could fail to find in petitioner’s favor); see also Sholla v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 946, 951 (8th Cir. 2007) (persecution is an extreme concept involving the threat of death, or the threat or infliction of torture or injury to one’s person or liberty). Miranda Lorenzo’s argument concerning economic persecution is not properly before this court. See Barillas-Mendez v. Lynch, 790 F.3d 787, 790 (8th Cir. 2015) (where petitioner never argued to agency that alleged economic deprivation constituted persecution alone or in combination with other harms, concluding issue was unexhausted). The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The IJ’s denial of withholding of removal and 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). Because Tomasa Miranda’s application is derivative of Miranda Lorenzo’s application, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A), all subsequent references are to Miranda Lorenzo. -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.
