Court Opinion

ID: 9376290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-02 17:00:39.655019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:06.615907
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 22-2716
                       ___________________________

                     Marcia Leneth Barrera-Fonseca; Y.A.

                                            Petitioners

                                       v.

                              Merrick B. Garland

                                       Respondent
                                ____________

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

                         Submitted: February 27, 2023
                            Filed: March 2, 2023
                                [Unpublished]
                               ____________

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Honduran citizens Marcia Leneth Barrera Fonseca and her minor son, Y.A.
(collectively, petitioners), petition for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA). Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court
denies the petition.
       The BIA dismissed petitioners’ appeal from the decision of an immigration
judge denying their requests for asylum and withholding of removal relief.1 After a
review of the petition and the record, this court finds no basis for reversal. See De
Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375, 379 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review).
Petitioners did not exhaust a challenge to the agency’s conclusion that their asylum
claim was time-barred, and do not raise the matter on appeal. They also failed to
exhaust any challenge to the conclusions that they did not establish: a nexus between
any harm they feared and their membership in a proposed protected social group,
and that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect them from the
harms they feared. Accordingly, such challenges are waived. See Agha v. Holder,
743 F.3d 609, 616 (8th Cir. 2014) (noncitizens may appeal only issues exhausted at
administrative level); Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d at 756 (waiver for
failure to raise claim in opening brief).

      As the failures to establish nexus and inability or unwillingness to protect are
dispositive of petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims, the court
declines to consider any remaining arguments.

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

      1
        The denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture is not before this
panel. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (claim
not raised in opening brief is waived).

                                         -2-