Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Kelly, and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Argument that the immigration court never acquired jurisdiction because of a deficient Notice to Appear rejected - see Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 2019); petitioner failed to exhaust the denial of his asylum claim, and even if he had exhausted the claim, this court would lack jurisdiction to review it; substantial evidence supported the denial of withholding of removal because petitioner failed to show a clear probability that he would be threatened in Guatemala because of a protected ground; no error in denying CAT relief because the claim was based on the same facts as petitioner's other rejected claims. [ July 26, 2021 ]
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1254 ___________________________ Pedro Mejia lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: July 22, 2021 Filed: July 27, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan native and citizen Pedro Mejia petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). As a preliminary matter, we conclude this court’s precedent forecloses Mejia’s argument, based on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), that the immigration court never acquired jurisdiction over his proceedings because his Notice to Appear was deficient. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2019). Moreover, to the extent Mejia intended to seek review of the denial of his asylum application, we may not review that challenge. He conceded during his counseled proceedings before the immigration judge that his application was untimely, the immigration judge found that it was untimely, and the BIA concluded he waived the claim by not challenging it on appeal. See Chak Yiu Lui v. Holder, 600 F.3d 980, 984 (8th Cir. 2010). Even if he had exhausted the claim, we would lack jurisdiction to review it. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3); Purwantono v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 822, 823-24 (8th Cir. 2007). We further conclude substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal, as Mejia failed to establish by a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened in Guatemala because of a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Silvestre-Giron v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1114, 1117, 1119 & n.3 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review). The agency determined Mejia failed to demonstrate the requisite nexus because his aggressors were motivated by monetary gain, not by his indigenous race or proposed particular social groups. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Garcia-Moctezuma v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 863, 868-69 (8th Cir. 2018); Marroquin-Ochoma v. Holder, 574 F.3d 574, 577 (8th Cir. 2009). Because this determination provided a sufficient basis for denying Mejia’s withholding of removal claim, we do not consider his other arguments. See Baltti v. Sessions, 878 F.3d 240, 245 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). Finally, we discern no error in the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Mejia based his claim on the same facts as his other claims. See Ming Ming Wijono v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 868, 874 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. ______________________________ -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.
