Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Gruender, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Petition for review - Immigration. Petitioner's challenge to the agency's jurisdiction in her removal proceeding is foreclosed by Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2019); substantial evidence supported the agency determination that petitioner was not entitled to asylum because she failed to show that she was unable or unwilling to return to Guatemala due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1411 ___________________________ Maria Ramos Tino; A.O.R.; B.J.T.R., lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners, v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States, lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent. ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: October 1, 2021 Filed: October 6, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan citizen Maria Ramos Tino, individually and on behalf of her minor children, A.O.R. and B.J.T.R., petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board dismissed her appeal from the decision of an immigration judge denying her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).* Upon careful consideration, we conclude that Ramos Tino’s challenge to the agency’s jurisdiction over her removal proceedings is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2019); see also Tino v. Garland, No. 20-3508, 2021 WL 4256185, at *1 & n.2 (8th Cir. Sept. 20, 2021) (per curiam). We further conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ramos Tino was not entitled to asylum, because she did not show that she was unable or unwilling to return to Guatemala due to past persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of a protected ground. See Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918, 920 (8th Cir. 2005). It follows that substantial evidence also 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). The petition is therefore denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ * Because A.O.R.’s and B.J.T.R.’s asylum applications are derivative of their mother’s (and there are no derivative benefits associated with withholding of removal or CAT protection), the opinion refers only to Ramos Tino. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A) (child also may be granted asylum if accompanying principal alien was granted asylum); Fuentes v. Barr, 969 F.3d 865, 868 n.1 (8th Cir. 2020). -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.
