Court Opinion

ID: 9381134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 21:01:14.080967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.230483
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1577      Doc: 19         Filed: 03/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1577

        GLADYS PATRICIA LINARES SUCHITE; DAGOBERTO MOLINA PAZ; SANDRA
        PATRICIA MOLINA LINARES; D.M.L.,

                            Petitioners,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 20, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring,
        Maryland, for Petitioners. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
        General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Joanna L. Watson, Senior Trial Attorney,
        Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
        JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1577      Doc: 19          Filed: 03/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Gladys Patricia Linares Suchite, her minor son, D.M.L., 1 her daughter, Sandra

        Patricia Molina Linares (Sandra), and the father of her children, Dagoberto Molina Paz

        (collectively “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of an

        order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing their appeal from the immigration

        judge’s decision denying Petitioners’ consolidated applications for asylum and

        withholding of removal. 2 We deny the petition for review.

               We have reviewed the administrative record, including the transcript of the merits

        hearing and all supporting evidence, and considered the arguments pressed on appeal in

        conjunction with the record and the relevant authorities. We conclude that the record

        evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings,

        particularly as related to Sandra’s individual claim for relief, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B),

        and that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s dispositive ruling, affirmed

        by the Board, that neither Ms. Linares Suchite nor Mr. Molina Paz established the requisite

        nexus between a protected ground and the asserted past persecution or the feared future

        persecution, see Velasquez v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 188, 195-96 (4th Cir. 2017) (reiterating

               1
                D.M.L. was a rider on Ms. Linares Suchite’s application.               See 8 U.S.C.
        § 1158(b)(3).
               2
                 Save for providing the relevant standards and a summary claim of entitlement for
        relief, Petitioners’ brief does not provide any argument related to the agency’s denial of
        protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Accordingly, this issue is waived.
        See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Cortez-Mendez v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 205, 208
        (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining that petitioner’s failure to address the denial of CAT relief
        waives the issue).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1577       Doc: 19         Filed: 03/20/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        the established principle that “the asylum statute was not intended as a panacea for the

        numerous personal altercations that invariably characterize . . . social relationships” and

        distinguishing the type of personally motivated conflicts that generally “fall[ ] outside the

        scope of asylum protection” (cleaned up)). See also Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d

        817, 824-26 (4th Cir. 2020) (explaining that, in conducting substantial evidence review of

        the agency’s nexus determination, this court “is limited to considering whether their

        conclusion is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence,” and holding

        that, under this standard, the record did not compel a conclusion contrary to the agency’s

        ruling that petitioner failed to satisfy the nexus element (internal quotation marks omitted)).

               Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.

        See In re Linares Suchite (B.I.A. Apr. 28, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because

        the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court

        and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                 PETITION DENIED

                                                      3