Luke LeFever v. Ivan Castellanos

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2860
___________________________
Edwin Omar Portillo Flores; B.O.P.M.; Yeny Any Mozo De Portillo; J.A.P.M.
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners
v.
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: June 21, 2024
Filed: July 9, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Salvadoran citizens Yeny Any Mozo De Portillo, her spouse Edwin Omar
Portillo Flores, and their minor children, B.O.P.M. and J.A.P.M., petition for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an
immigration judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

-- 1 of 2 --

After careful review, we conclude that the BIA did not err by denying asylum.
See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1) (eligibility requirements). Substantial
evidence supports the finding that Mozo De Portillo failed to demonstrate the
requisite nexus between any persecution or feared persecution and her imputed
political opinion of opposition to gang control. See id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(I) (asylum
applicant must show the claimed protected ground “was or will be at least one central
reason” for persecution); Silvestre-Giron v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1114, 1119 & n.3 (8th Cir.
2020) (nexus is a factual determination reviewed for substantial evidence and will not
be reversed unless the record evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder
could fail to find in petitioner’s favor); Marroquin-Ochoma v. Holder, 574 F.3d 574,
578-79 (8th Cir. 2009) (mere refusal to join gang, without more, does not compel
finding that gang’s threats were on account of imputed political opinion); Aguilar v.
Garland, 60 F.4th 401, 406 (8th Cir. 2023) (unless record shows gang’s persecution
is related to applicant’s actual or imputed political opinion, refusal to comply with
gang demands alone is insufficient to demonstrate required nexus). The failure to
establish a nexus to a protected ground was dispositive of Mozo De Portillo’s asylum
claim. See Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 710 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).
As Mozo De Portillo was unable to meet the burden of proof required for
asylum, we conclude the BIA did not err by denying withholding of removal. See
Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872, 881 (8th Cir. 2008) (noncitizen who does not meet
well-founded fear standard for asylum cannot meet higher “clear probability of
persecution” standard for withholding of removal). We also conclude that the
petitioner waived any claim of protection under the CAT by not challenging the
immigration judge’s denial at the BIA or in her petition for review in this court. See
Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (explaining that a
claim not raised in an opening brief is deemed waived).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --