Flor Carrera-Alarcon v. Merrick Garland, No. 21-1607 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Kelly, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Challenge to the agency's jurisdiction over petitioners' removal proceedings is foreclosed by Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 2019); the record does not suggest that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that petitioners' proposed protected grounds actually motivated their persecutors' actions; substantial evidence supported the agency's denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1607 ___________________________ Flor Carrera-Alarcon; K.P.C. Petitioners v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States Respondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: October 25, 2021 Filed: November 4, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Mexican citizens Flor Carrera-Alarcon and K.P.C. (collectively, petitioners), petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed their appeal from the decision of an immigration judge denying them asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition. Petitioners’ challenge to the agency’s jurisdiction over their removal proceedings is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2019); Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 709 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). The record does not suggest that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that petitioners’ proposed protected grounds actually motivated their persecutors’ actions. See Garcia-Moctezuma v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 863, 869 (8th Cir. 2018). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Martin Martin v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1141, 1145 (8th Cir. 2019) (noncitizen who cannot establish eligibility for asylum necessarily cannot meet more rigorous standard of proof for withholding of removal; under the CAT, noncitizen must show severe pain or suffering inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity). The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 K.P.C.’s asylum application is derivative of her mother’s. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A) (child also may be granted asylum if accompanying principal alien was granted asylum); cf. Fuentes v. Barr, 969 F.3d 865, 868 n.1 (8th Cir. 2020) (recognizing that there are no derivative benefits associated with withholding of removal or CAT protection). -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.
