Case Name: Juan Tomas LEON, 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: 2012-03-01
Citations: 451 F. App'x 608
Docket Number: No. 11-2006
Parties: Juan Tomas LEON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 451
Pages: 608–608

Head Matter:
Juan Tomas LEON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 11-2006.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 27, 2012.
Filed: March 1, 2012.
Bassel El-Kasaby, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner.
Karen Yolanda Drummond, Richard M. Evans, Allison Frayer, Allen Warren Hausman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Juan Tomas Leon petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an immigration judge's denial of withholding of removal. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Leon failed to show it was more likely than not that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground if returned to Guatemala. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (alien may not be removed to county if alien's life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of race, religion, nationality, membership in particular social group, or political opinion); Wijono v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review; applicant for withholding of removal has burden to show clear probability of persecution, which is same as showing persecution is more likely than not to occur).
Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. Leon also pursued asylum and relief under the Convention Against Torture, but he does not address these claims in his brief; thus, they are waived. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir.2004) (appellant waives claim that is not meaningfully raised in opening brief).