Court Opinion

ID: 9949760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 16:00:38.32149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:45.228561
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-2733
                        ___________________________

                             Candelaria Ajanel-Solis

                             lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

                                           v.

           Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General for the United States

                            lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
                                     ____________

                      Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals
                                   ____________

                           Submitted: February 29, 2024
                              Filed: March 12, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before COLLOTON,1 KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Guatemalan citizen Candelaria Ajanel-Solis petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an immigration judge’s

      1
       Judge Colloton became chief judge of the circuit on March 11, 2024. See 28
U.S.C. § 45(a)(1).
decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

       After careful review, we conclude that the BIA properly denied asylum and
withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1), 1231(b)(3)(A).
Ajanel-Solis does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that she failed to meaningfully
dispute the finding that any alleged past persecution was not motivated by an anti-
gang political opinion, see Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir.
2004) (explaining that a claim not raised in an opening brief is deemed waived), and,
despite her arguments otherwise, the record does not compel the conclusion that she
demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution based on an imputed anti-
gang political opinion, see Aguilar v. Garland, 60 F.4th 401, 405 (8th Cir. 2023)
(standard of review). Instead, substantial evidence supports the finding that gang
members would target her for non-political reasons, and the country reports do not
compel a contrary conclusion. See Aguilar, 60 F.4th at 405–06 (concluding that the
refusal to comply with demands of a politically influential gang, without more, is
insufficient to show the gang’s mistreatment would be motivated by an anti-gang
political opinion); Marroquin-Ochoma v. Holder, 574 F.3d 574, 578–79 (8th Cir.
2009) (concluding that a general political motive underlying a gang’s actions is
insufficient to show the gang believes resistance to those actions is based on an anti-
gang political opinion).

      We will not consider Ajanel-Solis’s argument that she established a fear of
persecution under a “pattern or practice” theory because she did not raise this
argument in her counseled agency proceedings. See Essel v. Garland, 89 F.4th 686,
691 (8th Cir. 2023). We also do not reach her argument that the Guatemalan
government was unwilling or unable to protect her, because her failure to show that

                                         -2-
any persecution would be motivated by a political opinion disposed of her claims.
See Marroquin-Ochoma, 574 F.3d at 579.2

      We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT
protection because Ajanel-Solis failed to prove that she more likely than not would
be tortured by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the
Guatemalan government. See Jima v. Barr, 942 F.3d 468, 473 (8th Cir. 2019) (CAT
applicant must show specific grounds exist indicating she would personally be at risk
and cannot rely on an unsupported hypothetical “chain of assumptions” related to
mass human-rights abuses); see also Garcia-Milian v. Lynch, 825 F.3d 943, 946 (8th
Cir. 2016) (concluding the Guatemalan government’s difficulty controlling gang
violence did not show acquiescence); Marroquin-Ochoma, 574 F.3d at 579–80
(same).

      Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                     ______________________________

      2
       Ajanel-Solis does not challenge the denial of asylum and withholding of
removal based on her proposed particular social groups, so we do not consider those
claims. See Chay-Velasquez, 367 F.3d at 756.

                                         -3-