Pedro Chavez-Ramirez v. Merrick B. Garland, No. 21-1902 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Benton, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Substantial evidence supported the agency's denial of asylum relief because the harm petitioner suffered in Guatemala was motivated by general crime and monetary gain and was not on account of a protected ground; substantial evidence also supported the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1902 ___________________________ Pedro Fernando Chavez-Ramirez 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of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: September 29, 2021 Filed: October 4, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan citizen Pedro Fernando Chavez-Ramirez 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, this court denies the petition. This court concludes that substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm Chavez-Ramirez experienced in Guatemala was motivated by general crime and monetary gain, rather than by a protected ground. See De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375, 379 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918, 920 (8th Cir. 2005), as corrected (Sept. 21, 2005) (asylum eligibility requirements); Fuentes v. Barr, 969 F.3d 865, 871-72 (8th Cir. 2020) (petitioner targeted by gang for money did not demonstrate nexus between alleged persecution and particular social group; record must compel conclusion that relationship to group, independent of other factors, was a central reason for persecution). That determination is dispositive of Chavez-Ramirez’s claim for asylum. See Tino v. Garland, No. 20-3508, 2021 WL 4256185, at *1 (8th Cir. Sept. 20, 2021). 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. ______________________________ -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.
