Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Benton, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Challenge to the agency's jurisdiction rejected - see Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 2019); substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that petitioner was not eligible for 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; substantial evidence supported the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1513 ___________________________ Martha Alicia Martin-Tzoc Petitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States Respondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: September 24, 2021 Filed: September 29, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan citizen Martha Alicia Martin-Tzoc petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed her appeal from the decision of an immigration judge denying her asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition. This court concludes that Martin-Tzoc’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). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Martin-Tzoc 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), as corrected (Sept. 21, 2005) (asylum eligibility requirements); De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375, 379 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review). 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) (applicant who does not 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.
