Ricardo Ramos Ramos v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2242
___________________________
Ricardo Ramos Ramos
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: November 29, 2023
Filed: December 8, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Ricardo Ramos Ramos 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 of 3 --

-2-
Ramos challenges the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) jurisdiction over removal
proceedings. He argues the IJ never obtained jurisdiction because his Notice of
Hearing (NTA) charging him with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)
did not specify a time and date for his initial hearing. The BIA rejected this challenge
based on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). His jurisdictional challenge is
foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir.
2019) (holding an immigration judge retains jurisdiction notwithstanding an NTA’s
lack of date or time for initial hearing); Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 709 n.2 (8th
Cir. 2021) (per curiam); see also Mendoza-Zacarias v. Wilkinson, 839 Fed. Appx.
33, 34 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).
Ramos asserts substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s denial of asylum
and withholding of removal. To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant must
show he is unwilling or unable to return to his country of origin “because of
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). This court reviews de novo the BIA’s decision on
questions of law and reviews factual findings under a “deferential substantial
evidence standard.” See de la Rosa v. Barr, 943 F.3d 1171, 1173-74 (8th Cir. 2019).
A reasonable factfinder could conclude that Ramos failed to establish past
persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on vague and
indefinite rumors that his estranged father was planning to kidnap him. See Cano v.
Barr, 956 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (8th Cir. 2020). A reasonable factfinder could also
conclude that Ramos failed to demonstrate the required nexus between any
persecution and a protected ground. As the IJ found, Ramos failed to provide any
evidence that his father’s conduct was motivated by any membership in protected
groups. See Silvestre-Giron v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1114, 1119 & n.3 (8th Cir. 2020);
see also Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 709 n.2 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (failure
to establish nexus was dispositive of asylum claim).

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Ramos challenges the IJ’s conclusion that he was not eligible for protection
under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). An applicant “may
not obtain relief under the CAT unless he can show that his prospective torturer has
the goal or intent of inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon him,
not merely that pain or suffering is practically certain to occur.” Escobar v. Garland,
55 F.4th 662, 670 (8th Cir. 2022). Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT
relief because Ramos railed to establish the requisite likelihood that, upon return to
his homeland, he would be tortured at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a Guatemalan public official or other person acting in an official
capacity. See Martin Martin v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1141, 1145 (8th Cir. 2019)
(noncitizen who cannot establish eligibility for asylum cannot meet more rigorous
standard of proof for withholding of removal; under the CAT, noncitizen must show
severe pain or suffering inflicted by or at the instigation of, or with the consent or
acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that petitioner was not
entitled to asylum. The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --