Court Opinion

ID: 9905802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 16:02:38.108968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:59.431437
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1611
                         ___________________________

                                Catalina Lux Satin

                                              Petitioner

                                         v.

            Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

                                         Respondent
                                  ____________

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

                          Submitted: November 14, 2023
                            Filed: November 30, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Guatemalan citizen Catalina Lux Satin petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals upholding the decision of an immigration judge (IJ)
to deny her asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies
the petition.
      Lux Satin’s challenge to the IJ’s jurisdiction, claiming an invalid Notice to
Appear under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), is foreclosed by circuit
precedent. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2019).

       This court finds no error in the determination that Lux Satin failed to establish
a nexus between her proposed particular social group (PSG) and the harm she feared
in Guatemala. See Silvestre-Giron v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1114, 1119 & n.3 (8th Cir.
2020) (nexus is a factual determination reviewed for substantial evidence and will
not be reversed unless the record evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact-
finder could fail to find in petitioner's favor).

      Because Lux Satin failed to establish a nexus, the agency did not err in
denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the
CAT. See Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 710 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (where
substantial evidence supported determination that noncitizen failed to demonstrate
nexus between persecution and PSG, failure was dispositive of asylum claim); Guled
v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872, 881-82 (8th Cir. 2008) (noncitizen who does not meet
well-founded fear standard for asylum cannot meet higher "clear probability of
persecution" standard for withholding of removal; separate analysis for CAT claim
is required only when there is evidence noncitizen may be tortured for reasons
unrelated to asylum and withholding of removal claims).

      The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                       ______________________________

                                          -2-