Gary Smith v. Warden Jeffie Walker

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2786
___________________________
Amalia Geronima Castro Lucas; B.E.L.C.; B.L.C.
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: June 20, 2025
Filed: July 9, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Amalia Geronima Castro Lucas, individually and on behalf
of her minor children, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals, which affirmed an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications

-- 1 of 2 --

for asylum, withhold of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT).1
Upon careful consideration, we conclude the agency properly denied Castro
Lucas’s asylum and withholding-of-removal applications. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1), 1231(b)(3)(A). Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s conclusion that Castro Lucas failed to establish a nexus between any
persecution she claimed to have suffered or feared, and a protected ground. See
Silvestre-Giron v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1114, 1118-19 & n.3 (8th Cir. 2020) (nexus is a
factual determination reviewed for substantial evidence); Rivas v. Sessions, 899 F.3d
537, 542 (8th Cir. 2018) (holding BIA permissibly denied petitioner’s asylum and
withholding-of-removal claims based on failure to show nexus); Martinez-Galarza
v. Holder, 782 F.3d 990, 993-94 (8th Cir. 2015) (alleged harm motivated by personal
retribution is not valid basis for asylum claim). We also conclude that Carlos Lucas’s
CAT claim is unexhausted and waived. See Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411,
423 (2023) (exhaustion requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is non-jurisdictional
claim-processing rule subject to waiver or forfeiture); Essel v. Garland, 89 F.4th 686,
691 (8th Cir. 2023) (enforcing court-imposed exhaustion requirement when
petitioner’s counsel failed to present argument to BIA); Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft,
367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (claim not raised or meaningfully argued in
opening brief is deemed waived).
Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1We refer to Castro Lucas because her children’s applications are derivative of
their mother’s application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A), (B). There are no
derivative benefits for withholding of removal or relief under the CAT. See Fuentes
v. Barr, 969 F.3d 865, 868 n.1 (8th Cir. 2020).
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --