Inmer Alvarado-Hernandez v. Matthew G. Whitaker, No. 18-1733 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Bowman and Stras, Circuit Judges] Petition for review - Immigration. Substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner failed to show past persecution in Guatemala or a well-founded fear of future persecution there due to a protected ground.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1733 ___________________________ Inmer Alexander Alvarado-Hernandez lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: January 17, 2019 Filed: January 23, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan citizen Inmer Alexander Alvarado-Hernandez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying his request for asylum and withholding of removal.1 Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition. After careful review, this court concludes that substantial evidence supports the determination that Alvarado-Hernandez failed to show past persecution in Guatemala, or a well-founded fear of future persecution there, due to any protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1) (asylum requirements); Garcia-Milian v. Lynch, 825 F.3d 943, 945 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review); Constanza v. Holder, 647 F.3d 749, 753 (8th Cir. 2011) (particular social group). Having failed to satisfy his burden of proof for his asylum claim, Alvarado-Hernandez has necessarily failed to satisfy the more rigorous standard for withholding of removal. See Matul-Hernandez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 707, 713 (8th Cir. 2012). The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The IJ’s denial of 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). -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.
