Court Opinion

ID: 9370016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 17:00:24.839125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.800383
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 22-2767
                       ___________________________

                         Victor Hugo Cardona-Gomez

                                            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: February 7, 2023
                          Filed: February 10, 2023
                               [Unpublished]
                               ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Guatemalan citizen Victor Hugo Cardona-Gomez petitions 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 Cardona-Gomez’s appeal from the decision of an
immigration judge denying his request for asylum and withholding of removal
relief.1 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Cardona-Gomez
was not eligible for asylum, because he did not establish past persecution or a well-
founded fear of future persecution. See Malonga v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 546, 550 (8th
Cir. 2008) (standard of review); Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918, 920 (8th Cir.
2005), as corrected (Sept. 21, 2005) (asylum eligibility requirements); see also Cano
v. Barr, 956 F.3d 1034, 1039 (8th Cir. 2020) (persecution involves infliction or
credible threat of death, torture, or injury; it is an extreme concept that excludes low-
level intimidation and harassment) (citations and quotations omitted); La v. Holder,
701 F.3d 566, 572 (8th Cir. 2012) (a well-founded fear of future persecution is both
subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable).

       Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal
relief. See Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872, 881-82 (8th Cir. 2008) (noncitizen who
does not meet standard for asylum cannot meet more rigorous clear probability
standard for withholding of removal).

      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-