United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2399

___________________________

Encarnacion Gomez-Puac; Jimena Candelaria Gomez, also known as Candelaria

Jimena Gomez-Ochoa

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners

v.

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States1

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

 ____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

 ____________

 Submitted: March 18, 2021

Filed: March 23, 2021 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

1Merrick B. Garland has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the

United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 43(c).
Encarnacion Gomez-Puac, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigrations Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).2 After careful

consideration of the record and the parties’ arguments, we conclude that Gomez-Puac

waived any challenge to CAT relief by specifically conceding the claim, and that he

waived any challenge to the denial of withholding of removal by not meaningfully

arguing it in his opening brief. See Adame-Hernandez v. Barr, 929 F.3d 1020, 1023

n.1 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 608 (2019) (reiterating that claims raised for the

first time in a reply brief are waived); Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756

(8th Cir. 2004) (reiterating that a claim not raised or meaningfully argued in an

opening brief is deemed waived). 

2Gomez-Puac’s minor daughter, Jimena Candelaria Gomez (Candelaria) filed

a separate I-589 application for asylum and withholding of removal, but her

proceedings were eventually consolidated with Gomez-Puac’s because her claim was

based on his claim, and she thus became his derivative applicant. Because

Candelaria’s asylum application was derivative of Gomez-Puac’s application, all

references are to Gomez-Puac, unless otherwise relevant. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(3)(A) (spouse or child “of an alien who is granted asylum under this

subsection may, if not otherwise eligible for asylum under this section, be granted the

same status as the alien if accompanying, or following to join, such alien”). There are

no derivative benefits for withholding of removal or CAT relief. See Fuentes v. Barr,

969 F.3d 865, 868 n.1 (8th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). To the extent Candelaria

intended to assert her own independent, non-derivative claim for asylum or

withholding of removal, we conclude that she waived any challenge to the denial of

such relief by failing to raise the issue before the BIA or this court. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(d)(1) (this court may review final removal order only if a noncitizen has

exhausted all administrative remedies); Baltti v. Sessions, 878 F.3d 240, 244 (8th Cir.

2017) (per curiam) (concluding that in enacting § 1252(d)(1), Congress intended that

a noncitizen not only pursue all stages of administrative review, but also raise all

issues before the agency).

-2-
The sole argument Gomez-Puac raises in his opening brief is that the BIA, in

denying asylum, erred by failing to analyze whether he had an objectively reasonable,

well-founded fear of persecution based on a “pattern or practice” of persecution of

a group of similarly situated individuals in Guatemala. But because the agency

determined Gomez-Puac’s asylum application was time-barred—a finding he did not

challenge and this court would nevertheless lack jurisdiction to review—we are

precluded from considering his asylum claim and Candelaria’s derivative asylum

claim, and we therefore do not reach the pattern-or-practice issue.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 

______________________________

-3-