Juana Gonzalez-Raymundo v. Merrick Garland, No. 22-2395 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Kelly, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that petitioner was not eligible for asylum because she did not establish that she had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground; substantial evidence supported the denial of withholding-of-removal relief.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2395 ___________________________ Juana Claudia Gonzalez-Raymundo 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of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: February 14, 2023 Filed: February 17, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan citizen Juana Claudia Gonzalez-Raymundo 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 and withholding of removal.1 Upon careful consideration, we conclude substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gonzalez-Raymundo was not eligible for asylum because she did not establish she had 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); Malonga v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 546, 550 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); see also Garcia-Moctezuma v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 863, 869 (8th Cir. 2018) (this court will reverse only if it determines that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the petitioner’s proposed protected ground “actually and sufficiently motivated his persecutors actions”); Alyas v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 756, 761 (8th Cir. 2005) (reasonableness of a fear of future persecution is diminished when family members remain in the native country unharmed). The court also concludes that substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding-of-removal relief. See Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872, 881-82 (8th Cir. 2008). The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 Gonzalez-Raymundo does not challenge the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture, or the agency’s determination that she failed to establish past persecution on account of a protected ground. Accordingly, any challenges have been waived. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (where claim is not raised or meaningfully argued in opening brief, it is deemed waived). -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.
