United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-2293

___________________________

Francisco Gomez-Ajanel

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: December 6, 2023

Filed: December 13, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Francisco Gomez-Ajanel petitions for review of an order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which denied his request to terminate the

proceedings based on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), and affirmed an

immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under

the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 
After careful review, we conclude that this court’s precedent forecloses

Gomez-Ajanel’s challenge to the immigration court’s jurisdiction over his removal

proceedings based on a purportedly defective Notice to Appear. See Ali v. Barr, 924

F.3d 983, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2019); see also Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 709 n.2 (8th

Cir. 2021) (per curiam). To the extent Gomez-Ajanel asks this court to compel the

agency to exercise prosecutorial discretion, we may not consider his request. See 8

U.S.C. § 1252(g); Hanggi v. Holder, 563 F.3d 378, 383 (8th Cir. 2009). 

We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum and

withholding of removal. See Cano v. Barr, 956 F.3d 1034, 1038 (8th Cir. 2020)

(explaining the standard of review). Assuming Gomez-Ajanel’s Quiche tribal group

was a cognizable particular social group, the record does not compel the conclusion

that his Quiche identity was or will be at least one central reason for his persecution. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (articulating the one-central-reason standard);

Silvestre-Giron v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1114, 1119 & n.3 (8th Cir. 2020) (reviewing for

substantial evidence the one-central-reason nexus determination); see also Tino, 13

F.4th at 710. Likewise, the record does not compel the conclusion that an imputed

anti-gang political opinion was or will be one central reason for Gomez-Ajanel’s

persecution, as he offered no evidence beyond his refusal to join a gang. See Aguilar

v. Garland, 60 F.4th 401, 405-06 (8th Cir. 2023). Furthermore, this court has

repeatedly held that resistance to gang membership does not present a cognizable

particular social group, and Gomez-Ajanel has offered no evidence or argument that

would warrant a different result in his case. See, e.g., Tojin-Tiu v. Garland, 33 F.4th

1020, 1024 (8th Cir. 2022). Because the failure to establish a nexus to a protected

statutory ground disposes of Gomez-Ajanel’s asylum and withholding-of-removal

claims, we do not need to address his other arguments on those claims. See

Uriostegui-Teran v. Garland, 72 F.4th 852, 856 (8th Cir. 2023); De la Rosa v. Barr,

943 F.3d 1171, 1174 (8th Cir. 2019). 

-2-
Finally, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT

protection because Gomez-Ajanel failed to show that he more likely than not would

be tortured by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the

Guatemalan government. See Silvestre-Giron, 949 F.3d at 1119-20 (explaining the

burden of proof); Martin Martin v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1141, 1145 (8th Cir. 2019).

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

______________________________

-3-