Case Name: Leonardo CIPRIAN-PABLO, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-05
Citations: 552 F. App'x 607
Docket Number: No. 13-2199
Parties: Leonardo CIPRIAN-PABLO, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 552
Pages: 607–607

Head Matter:
Leonardo CIPRIAN-PABLO, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 13-2199.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 31, 2014.
Filed: Feb. 5, 2014.
Leonardo Ciprian-Pablo, Grand Island, NE, pro se.
Sara Bergene, Karen Yolanda Drum-mond, Richard M. Evans, Hillel Ryder Smith, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Leonardo Ciprian-Pablo petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld an immigration judge's denial of withholding of removal. After carefully reviewing the BIA's conclusions of law de novo, and its factual determinations under the substantial-evidence standard, we find no basis for reversal. See De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375, 379 (8th Cir.2013) (standards of review). We agree with the BIA's determination that Ciprian-Pablo failed to establish a clear probability of persecution in Guatemala on account of a protected ground. Cf. Matul-Hernandez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 707, 712-13 (8th Cir.2012) (agreeing with BIA that "the group 'Guatemalans returning from the United States who are perceived as wealthy " is not particular social group within meaning of immigration laws; upholding denial of relief where petitioner presented no evidence that his uncle's kidnapping, and related ransom request, were at all related to fact that petitioner's uncle was visiting from United States). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. Ciprian-Pablo was also denied asylum, but he does not address this claim in his brief. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir.2004) (petitioner waives claim that is not meaningfully raised in opening brief).