United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-2149

___________________________

Jesus Parada-Castro

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Jefferson B. Sessions, III

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: March 19, 2018

Filed: March 28, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Mexican citizen Jesus Parada-Castro petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), dismissing his appeal from the decision of an

immigration judge (IJ) denying himasylum, withholding ofremoval, and relief under

the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Parada-Castro claims the BIA erred (1) in

finding that the IJ’s factual errors did not deprive him of due process, and in allowing
a single BIA member to review his case; (2) in upholding the IJ’s finding that he did

not establish a nexus between his feared harm and his proposed particular social

group; (3) in upholding the IJ’s finding that he could reasonably relocate within

Mexico to avoid his feared harm; and (4) in upholding the denial of CAT relief.

Parada-Castro’s first due-process argument is misdirected, asthis court reviews

the IJ’s decision only to the extent the BIA adopted the IJ’s findings and reasoning,

and here, the BIA did not adopt the findings that Parada-Castro identified as

erroneous, but instead conducted an independent review of the record and correctly

set forth the facts upon which it based its determination. See Alva-Arellano v. Lynch,

811 F.3d 1064, 1066 (8th Cir. 2016) (to establish that removal hearing has violated

due process, alien must demonstrate both fundamental procedural error and

prejudice); Iyamba v. I.N.S., 244 F.3d 606, 607 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (where

BIA conducts independent review of IJ’s findings, appellate review is of BIA

decision). Parada-Castro’s second due-process contention--alleging BIA error in

allowing a single BIA member to review his case--is not subject to judicial review. 

Cf. Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 983 (8th Cir. 2004) (concluding that BIA’s

decision whether to employ single-member “affirm without opinion” procedure in

particular case is committed to agency’s discretion and not subject to judicial review). 

Accordingly, this court concludes that Parada-Castro has failed to demonstrate that

he was prejudiced by any fundamental procedural error. See Alva-Arellano, 811 F.3d

at 1066.

Upon careful consideration of Parada-Castro’s remaining arguments, this court

concludes that substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that he was

not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal due to persecution, or a wellfounded fear of future persecution, on account of a protected ground. See De CastroGutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375, 379 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review);

Gutierrez-Vidal v. Holder, 709 F.3d 728, 732 (8th Cir. 2013) (asylum requirements); 

Ngure, 367 F.3d at 989 (showing required for withholding of removal is even higher

-2-
than asylum’s “well-founded fear” standard). Further, substantial evidence also

supportsthe agency’s denial of CAT relief. See De Castro-Gutierrez, 713 F.3d at 381

(requirements for protection under CAT).

The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-3-