Gladys Patricia Linares Suchite v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

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 of 3 --