Case Name: Santiago ALONSO-GUICO, 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: 2014-08-29
Citations: 576 F. App'x 661
Docket Number: No. 14-1079
Parties: Santiago ALONSO-GUICO, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before BYE, SMITH, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 576
Pages: 661–661

Head Matter:
Santiago ALONSO-GUICO, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 14-1079.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 22, 2014.
Filed: Aug. 29, 2014.
Santiago Alonso-Guico, Norfolk, NE, pro se.
David V. Bernal, Yedidya Cohen, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Brooke Maurer, U.S. Department of Justice, Carl H. McIntyre, Jennifer Paisner Williams, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before BYE, SMITH, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Santiago Alonso-Guico petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which upheld an immigration judge's denial of withholding of removal. We conclude that the denial of withholding of removal was supported by substantial evidence. See Alavez-Hernandez v. Holder, 714 F.3d 1063, 1066 (8th Cir.2013) (to qualify for withholding of removal, applicant must show clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened in proposed country of removal on account of protected ground); Ming Ming Wijono v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 868, 873 (8th Cir.2006) (when family members remain in native country unharmed and applicant himself had not been targeted for abuse, reasonableness of fear of persecution for purposes of withholding of removal is diminished). The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. Alonso was also denied asylum (as his claim was untimely) and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), but he has waived those claims. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir.2004) (petitioner waives claim that is not meaningfully argued in opening brief).