United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-2199

___________________________

Licely Adalina Cardona-Ramirez; S.A.V.; W.A.V.

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners

v.

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

 ____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

 ____________

 Submitted: April 10, 2024

Filed: May 23, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Licely Adalina Cardona-Ramirez (Cardona) petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’s (Board’s) dismissal of her appeal from an immigration

judge’s (IJ’s) denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We

deny the petition for review. 
Cardona and her two minor children entered the United States in February

2015. After removal proceedings were initiated against them, Cardona applied for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection from removal under the Convention

Against Torture (CAT). Cardona’s children were derivative applicants on her asylum

application.1

Cardona’s husband was badly beaten in 2011 after he delivered a summons to

a gang leader’s home. When he recovered, Cardona’s husband fled to the United

States. The gang leader confronted Cardona at the market sometime thereafter. He

told Cardona that her husband deserved the beating, all the while keeping his hand

on a machete that was tucked into his belt. She and her children later moved to

Quetzaltenango, Guatemala, which is approximately three hours away from their

former home. 

Cardona’s new home was broken into approximately six months after her

husband had fled. Cardona and her daughter escaped unnoticed, and nothing was

stolen. When Cardona and her children were living with family in October 2014,

someone poisoned their dogs, which were used for protection. The perpetrator left

a note threatening that “it was just the dogs now” and that “later it would be the rest

of the family from oldest to youngest.” Cardona believed that the incidents were

related to the gang leader.

The IJ denied Cardona’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal,

but did not did not reach the merits of Cardona’s application for CAT protection,

having found that she withdrew the claim. The Board dismissed the appeal, finding

1The opinion refers to Cardona because she is the principal applicant. See 8

U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A) (an accompanying child may be granted same status as

noncitizen parent who is granted asylum). 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).

-2-
that she had not established persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. 

Cardona did not challenge the IJ’s determination that she had withdrawn her claim

for CAT protection, and the Board refused to consider the merits of the claim for the

first time on appeal. 

To qualify for asylum, Cardona was required to establish that she was unable

or unwilling to return to her home country “because of persecution or a well-founded

fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a

particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). To qualify for

withholding of removal, she bore “the even higher burden of demonstrating a clear

probability that she will be persecuted.” Fuentes-Erazo v. Sessions, 848 F.3d 847,

852 (8th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Cardona argues that she established past persecution and a well-founded fear

of persecution and that she is therefore entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. 

We review the “question of past persecution or well-founded fear of future

persecution, as well as the findings underlying that determination . . . under the

substantial evidence standard.” He v. Garland, 24 F.4th 1220, 1224 (8th Cir. 2022). 

Under that standard, “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B). 

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Cardona did

not experience harm rising to the level of persecution. Cardona’s testimony that she

felt threatened during the confrontation with the gang leader does not compel the

conclusion that she experienced a threat “so menacing as to cause significant actual

suffering or harm.” Padilla-Franco v. Garland, 999 F.3d 604, 608 (8th Cir. 2021)

(quoting La v. Holder, 701 F.3d 566, 570 (8th Cir. 2012)). Nor does Cardona’s belief

that the gang leader caused the break-in, the dog poisonings, and the delivery of the

threatening note compel the conclusion that he, in fact, caused those events or that

-3-
they were related to her husband’s service of a summons. See Tegegn v. Holder, 702

F.3d 1142, 1144-45 (8th Cir. 2013) (rejecting noncitizen’s argument that a hit-andrun incident constituted persecution when he could not identify the car, its driver, or

the individual who later threatened him). “Just as those reasons are insufficient to

show past persecution, they are insufficient to show a well-founded fear of future

persecution.” Cano v. Barr, 956 F.3d 1034, 1040 (8th Cir. 2020). 

Cardona argues that her case must be remanded to the Board to consider the

merits of her application for protection under the CAT, asserting that its refusal to

consider the claim violated her due process rights. To establish a due process

violation, an applicant “must demonstrate both a fundamental procedural error and

prejudice as a result of the error.” Fofana v. Holder, 704 F.3d 554, 557 (8th Cir.

2013) (quoting Camishi v. Holder, 616 F.3d 883, 886 (8th Cir. 2010)). 

In the oral decision, the IJ specifically stated that Cardona had withdrawn her

request for protection under the CAT: “At the beginning of today’s hearing the

respondent informed the Court that she was not . . . making a claim under the Torture

Convention.” Moreover, the transcript reveals no mention of torture or any argument

related to protection under the CAT. Although the IJ checked a box on a post-hearing

order that the CAT claim had been “denied,” the order also states that it “is a

summary of the oral decision” and that “the oral decision will become the official

opinion” in the event of an appeal. We thus discern no fundamental procedural error

in the Board’s reliance on the IJ’s determination in the oral decision that the claim

had been withdrawn.

The petition for review is denied.

______________________________

-4-