Court Opinion

ID: 9384319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-03 16:00:42.227757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:52.704504
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-3113
                        ___________________________

                                    Dionicio Toj

                             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: March 29, 2023
                               Filed: April 3, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Guatemalan citizen Dionicio Toj petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA denied Toj’s request to terminate the
proceedings based on a purportedly defective Notice to Appear and affirmed an
immigration judge’s decision denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
      We conclude that Toj’s challenge to the agency’s jurisdiction over his removal
proceedings based on his purportedly defective Notice to Appear is foreclosed by this
court’s precedent. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2019); see also
Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 709 n.2 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).

       We also conclude that the agency did not err by denying asylum. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1) (eligibility requirements). Substantial evidence
supports the finding that Toj failed to demonstrate the requisite nexus between any
persecution or feared persecution and his race or membership in his proposed
particular social group. See id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (asylum applicant must show the
claimed protected ground “was or will be at least one central reason” for persecution);
Silvestre-Giron v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1114, 1119 & n.3 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of
review); see also Tino, 13 F.4th at 710 (upholding adverse nexus finding when
petitioner repeatedly testified aggressor targeted her for extortion, not her “indigenous
tribal group of K’iche”); Martinez-Galarza v. Holder, 782 F.3d 990, 993-94 (8th Cir.
2015) (concluding that actions motivated by purely personal retribution do not
establish the requisite nexus for an asylum claim). The failure to establish a nexus
to a protected ground was dispositive of Toj’s asylum and withholding-of-removal
claims, so we do not reach his other arguments. See Tino, 13 F.4th at 710; de la Rosa
v. Barr, 943 F.3d 1171, 1174 (8th Cir. 2019). Finally, substantial evidence also
supports the denial of Toj’s CAT claim, which was based on the same allegations as
his other claims. See Martin Martin v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1141, 1145 (8th Cir. 2019)
(explaining that the CAT standard is more onerous than the standards for asylum or
withholding of removal).

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

                                          -2-