Court Opinion

ID: 9389054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-24 15:01:20.720143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:25.024236
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eighth Circuit
                     ___________________________

                             No. 22-3403
                     ___________________________

                     Sonia Esperanza Calderon Lopez

                         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: April 17, 2023
                           Filed: April 24, 2023
                               [Unpublished]
                              ____________

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                        ____________

PER CURIAM.
      Sonia Esperanza Calderon Lopez, a citizen of Guatemala, applied for asylum
and withholding of removal. An immigration judge denied her application, and the
Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.1 Calderon Lopez petitions for review.

       Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, we conclude that
Calderon Lopez has waived review of her asylum and withholding-of-removal claims
because she has failed to meaningfully challenge the agency’s reasons for denying
them. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (explaining
that a claim not meaningfully argued in an opening brief is waived); see also, e.g.,
Coreas-Chavez v. Garland, 52 F.4th 413, 416 (8th Cir. 2022); Hassan v. Rosen, 985
F.3d 587, 590 n.1 (8th Cir. 2021). Even if Calderon Lopez had not waived review,
the agency did not err in denying those claims. Among other reasons, her asylum
claim failed because she did not establish a cognizable proposed particular group, see
Mayorga-Rosa v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 379, 383, 384-85 (8th Cir. 2018), or a nexus to
any imputed anti-gang political opinion, see Aguilar v. Garland, 60 F.4th 401, 405-06
(8th Cir. 2023). These determinations, alone, were dispositive of her asylum claim.
See Miranda v. Sessions, 892 F.3d 940, 944 (8th Cir. 2018); Gonzalez Cano v. Lynch,
809 F.3d 1056, 1059 (8th Cir. 2016). And because her asylum claim failed, she
necessarily failed to meet the higher burden of proof for withholding of removal. See
Agha, 743 F.3d at 615.

      Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R 47B.
                      ______________________________

      1
       The immigration judge also pretermitted Calderon Lopez’s application for
cancellation of removal, denied protection under the Convention Against Torture, and
denied voluntary departure, but we do not consider those claims because they are
unexhausted or waived. See Agha v. Holder, 743 F.3d 609, 616 (8th Cir. 2014)
(discussing exhaustion); Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir.
2004) (discussing waiver).

                                         -2-