Get Loud Arkansas v. Cole Jester

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2056
___________________________
Andres Leonardo Arpi-Pintado
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
v.
Pamela Bondi
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: March 11, 2026
Filed: March 16, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Andres Leonardo Arpi-Pintado petitions for review after an immigration judge
(IJ) denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and the BIA denied the government’s motion
to dismiss proceedings and dismissed Arpi-Pintado’s appeal from the IJ’s decision.
Arpi-Pintado also argues for the first time on appeal that the IJ abused its discretion

-- 1 of 2 --

by denying him a continuance, and that the agency violated his due process rights
because it deprived him of the opportunity to seek voluntary departure.
We conclude that Arpi-Pintado forfeited his due process challenge and
challenge to the denial of a continuance by failing to raise the arguments in his
administrative appeal. See Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 423 (2023);
Essel v. Garland, 89 F.4th 686, 691 (8th Cir. 2023); see also Ming Ming Wijono v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 868, 871-72 (8th Cir. 2006). Regarding the denial of relief from
removal, Arpi-Pintado does not meaningfully challenge the denial of withholding of
removal on appeal; accordingly, any challenge has been waived. See Chay-Velasquez
v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004). With respect to asylum, Arpi-Pintado
failed to exhaust a challenge to the IJ’s nexus determination, see Essel, 89 F.4th at
691; and in any event, the argument he presents on appeal requires consideration of
facts that are not in the record, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); accord Lukowski v.
INS, 279 F.3d 644, 646 (8th Cir. 2002). The nexus determination is dispositive of the
claim. See Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 710 (8th Cir. 2021); Garcia-Moctezuma
v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 863, 869 (8th Cir. 2018). Given that Arpi-Pintado’s asylum and
CAT claims were based on the same allegations, this court also concludes that the
BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying him CAT protection. See Martin Martin
v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1141, 1145 (8th Cir. 2019). Finally, assuming without deciding that
exhaustion of Arpi-Pintado’s challenge to the denial of the government’s motion to
dismiss is not required, we conclude that the BIA gave a valid reason to deny the
motion. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1239.2(c), 239.2(a)(7); see also Matters of Jaso & Ayala, 27
I. & N. Dec. 557, 558 (BIA 2019).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --