Gary Smith v. Warden Jeffie Walker

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3318
___________________________
Angel Ramos-Ramos; A.J.R.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: July 18, 2025
Filed: July 23, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Angel Ramos-Ramos, on behalf of himself and his minor
child, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
The BIA dismissed his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision denying

-- 1 of 3 --

him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT).1
Upon careful consideration, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s determination that Ramos-Ramos was not entitled to asylum. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1); Garcia-Milian v. Lynch, 825 F.3d 943, 945 (8th Cir.
2016) (standard of review). A reasonable factfinder could conclude that he did not
establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Cano v.
Barr, 956 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (8th Cir. 2020) (persecution “is an extreme concept that
excludes low-level intimidation and harassment”; threats, alone, will rarely amount
to persecution, and only if they are “so menacing as to cause significant actual
suffering or harm”; in establishing well-founded fear of future persecution, applicant
may not rely on reasons used to establish unsuccessful claim of past persecution
(quotations omitted)); see also Al Yatim v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 584, 588-89 (8th Cir.
2008) (difficulties that are part of “general state of unrest throughout area” or that
result from generalized violence or crime typically do not qualify as persecution
(quotation omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Ramos-
Ramos failed to demonstrate the requisite nexus between any persecution and a
protected ground. See Silvestre-Giron v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1114, 1118-19 & n.3 (8th
Cir. 2020) (finding substantial evidence supported lack of nexus where a reasonable
factfinder could conclude that those persecuting applicant were only motivated by
money). We also conclude the agency properly denied Ramos-Ramos withholding
of removal and CAT protection. See Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872, 881-82 (8th
Cir. 2008) (noncitizen who does not meet well-founded fear standard for asylum
cannot meet higher “clear probability” standard for withholding of removal; separate
analysis for CAT claim “is required only when there is evidence the [noncitizen] may
1We refer to Ramos-Ramos because his daughter’s application is derivative of
her father’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 3 --

be tortured for reasons unrelated to his claims for asylum and withholding of
removal”).
Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --