Court Opinion

ID: 9366990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-30 16:01:13.460684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:56.567282
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 22-2589
                       ___________________________

                       Radai Obed Mendez Dominguez

                           lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

                                         v.

           Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

                          lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
                                   ____________

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

                         Submitted: January 25, 2023
                           Filed: January 30, 2023
                                [Unpublished]
                               ____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Guatemalan citizen Radai Obed Mendez Dominguez petitions for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for
withholding of removal and his request for voluntary departure.
       Upon careful consideration of the petition and the record, we find no basis for
reversal. See Gathungu v. Holder, 725 F.3d 900, 907 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of
review). Mendez Dominguez did not challenge the BIA’s dispositive conclusion that
he failed to show the Guatemalan government would be unable or unwilling to
protect him from his alleged persecutors. See Coreas-Chavez v. Garland, 52 F.4th
413, 416 (8th Cir. 2022) (failure to meaningfully challenge determinative issue of
whether government was unable or unwilling to control persecution resulted in
waiver of argument); cf. Galloso v. Barr, 954 F.3d 1189, 1193 (8th Cir. 2020), as
amended (Apr. 15, 2020) (burden of proof is on petitioner to establish eligibility for
relief; petitioner failed to show Mexican government was unable or unwilling to
protect her based on country reports and testimony that she did not and would not
contact police). As to the denial of voluntary departure, Mendez Dominguez
identifies no question of law or constitutional claim on appeal. See Puc-Ruiz v.
Holder, 629 F.3d 771, 782 (8th Cir. 2010) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review
discretionary denial of voluntary departure unless denial raises colorable question of
law or constitutional claim).

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

                                         -2-