Tonya Huber v. Westar Foods, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1595
___________________________
Yesica Liseth Viana-De Aleman
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: April 18, 2025
Filed: May 1, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before ERICKSON, ARNOLD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After Yesica Liseth Viana-De Aleman left her native El Salvador and entered
the United States, the Department of Homeland Security alleged that she was
removable as an alien present in the country without being admitted or paroled. See
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Viana-De Aleman conceded that she was removable but
sought asylum and withholding of removal because she feared that a gang in her

-- 1 of 2 --

native country would persecute her if she returned, as, she alleged, it had done before.
An immigration judge denied her request for several reasons, including Viana-De
Aleman's failure to show, as required for both asylum and withholding of removal,
see Edionseri v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 1101, 1104–05 (8th Cir. 2017), that the harms she
had suffered in the past or feared she would suffer in the future were inflicted by the
government or by private actors that the government is unable or unwilling to control.
When Viana-De Aleman appealed the immigration judge's decision to the
Board of Immigration Appeals, she did not dispute the finding that she hadn't shown
the government or those the government couldn't or wouldn't control had persecuted
her. The BIA observed that Viana-De Aleman did not contest this issue, and it
dismissed her appeal for this and several other reasons. Viana-De Aleman now
petitions our court to review the BIA's decision.
In her petition for review, Viana-De Aleman briefly challenges the immigration
judge's relevant finding, arguing that "if the government or police was able to control
the actors in this case, then the repeated harm would not be present." But by failing
to raise this contention to the BIA, Viana-De Aleman has not exhausted the matter,
and so we decline to consider it. See Zongo v. Garland, 71 F.4th 656, 659–60 & n.1
(8th Cir. 2023). And she never asserts that the BIA erred in deeming the matter
uncontested. Because we decline to review this "determinative issue," Viana-De
Aleman's request for asylum and withholding of removal necessarily fails, and we
need not address the various other contentions that she raises. See Coreas-Chavez v.
Garland, 52 F.4th 413, 416 (8th Cir. 2022).
Petition dismissed.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --