Marcos Cortez Pablo v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States1

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2258
___________________________
Marcos Cortez Pablo
Petitioner
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States1
Respondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: February 4, 2025
Filed: February 7, 2025
[Unpublished]
Before BENTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Marcos Cortez Pablo 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.
1 Pamela Bondi, has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United
States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 43(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
The BIA denied Cortez Pablo’s request to terminate the proceedings under
Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U.S. 198 (2018), and Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155
(2021), and dismissed his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge denying
him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). Cortez Pablo’s challenge to the agency’s jurisdiction over his
removal proceedings is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See Ali v. Barr, 924
F.3d 983, 985–86 (8th Cir. 2019); Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 709 n.2 (8th Cir.
2021) (per curiam).
Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum and
withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1); Cano v. Barr,
956 F.3d 1034, 1038 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review). The record does not
compel the conclusion that Cortez Pablo’s race or membership in his proposed
particular social groups was or would be one central reason for the harm he
experienced or feared. See Silvestre-Giron v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1114, 1119 & n.3 (8th
Cir. 2020) (explaining standard of review for “one central reason” nexus standard);
Pascual-Miguel v. Garland, 89 F.4th 657, 660 (8th Cir. 2023) (“General criminal
intent is not a persecutory motive.”); Tino, 13 F.4th at 710 (upholding adverse nexus
finding when petitioner testified aggressor targeted her to extort money, not because
of her indigenous status). The failure to establish a nexus disposes of Cortez Pablo’s
claims for asylum and withholding of removal. See Tino, 13 F.4th at 710.
Cortez Pablo has waived review of the agency’s denial of his CAT claim
because he does not address the BIA’s dispositive determination that he failed to
challenge the immigration judge’s finding that he likely would not be tortured. See
Coreas-Chavez v. Garland, 52 F.4th 413, 416 (8th Cir. 2022); Moallin v. Barr, 980
F.3d 1207, 1211 (8th Cir. 2020). In any event, his claim otherwise fails because he
based it on the same facts as his other claims, and he did not show that the
Guatemalan government would acquiesce in torture by a private citizen. See
Silvestre-Giron, 949 F.3d at 1119–20 (explaining the standard of review and that the
Guatemalan government’s lack of success at preventing torture by private actors

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
does not, by itself, mean the government acquiesces in torture); Marroquin-Ochoma
v. Holder, 574 F.3d 574, 579–80 (8th Cir. 2009).
The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --