Gerson Hernandez-Rodriguez v. William P. Barr, No. 18-3478 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Shepherd and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that petitioner was not entitled to asylum as he did not show that he was unable to return to Guatemala due to persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected ground; substantial evidence also supported the denial of withholding of removal or CAT relief. [ August 29, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3478 ___________________________ Gerson Antonio Hernandez-Rodriguez lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: August 28, 2019 Filed: August 30, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan citizen Gerson Hernandez-Rodriguez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), this court denies the petition. This court concludes that substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Hernandez-Rodriguez was not entitled to asylum. He did not show that he 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 (8th Cir. 2018) (asylum requirements); Garcia-Milian v. Lynch, 825 F.3d 943, 945 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). This court further concludes that substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872, 881-82 (8th Cir. 2008) (applicant who does meet standard for asylum cannot meet more rigorous standard for withholding of removal; separate analysis for CAT claim is not required when there is no evidence alien may be tortured for reasons unrelated to claims for asylum and withholding of removal). The petition is denied. 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.
