Gelson Yanez Orellana v. Todd Blanche,1 Acting Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1604
___________________________
Gelson Yanez Orellana
Petitioner
v.
Todd Blanche,1 Acting Attorney General of the United States
Respondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: May 11, 2026
Filed: July 23, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, SHEPHERD and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Gelson Yanez Orellana, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the
immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of
1 Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is automatically substituted as
respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
removal. After careful review, and having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we
deny the petition.
“We review the BIA’s decision, as it is the final agency decision; however, to
the extent that the BIA adopted the findings or the reasoning of the IJ, we also review
the IJ’s decision as part of the final agency action.” Lemus-Coronado v. Garland,
58 F.4th 399, 402 (8th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). “We review the BIA’s legal
determinations de novo and employ the deferential ‘substantial evidence’ standard
when reviewing the BIA’s factual determinations.” Quijano-Duran v. Bondi, 172
F.4th 991, 994 (8th Cir. 2026) (citation omitted). Under this standard, we will
“uphold[] the decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative
evidence based on the record as a whole.” Calvo-Tino v. Garland, 107 F.4th 861,
865 (8th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted).
Yanez Orellana contends that the IJ erred in holding that he failed to
demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his membership in a
cognizable particular social group, namely his familial relationship, and in finding
that he failed to demonstrate that the Honduran government was unwilling or unable
to protect him. The Government contends that Yanez Orellana’s claims are
unexhausted because the BIA properly invoked its waiver rule.
The BIA determined that Yanez Orellana “has not meaningfully challenged
the Immigration Judge’s determination that [he] did not establish membership in a
cognizable particular social group or that his claim bears a nexus to an enumerated
ground,” and, therefore, those issues were deemed waived. Our review of the record
confirms that, in the proceedings before the BIA, Yanez Orellana mentioned but did
not develop the cognizable social group issue. Missing from Yanez Orellana’s
filings with the BIA is any argument or explanation as to why the determination of
the IJ was in error or any argument in support of Yanez Orellana’s position. The
failure to meaningfully challenge the ALJ’s findings constitutes a failure to exhaust.
Frango v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 2006) (“Section 1252(d)(1) of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 requires a

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
petitioner, as a condition to judicial review, to have ‘exhausted all administrative
remedies available to the alien as of right.’” (citation omitted)); see also Santos-
Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 423 (2023) (explaining that the exhaustion
requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule);
Essel v. Garland, 89 F.4th 686, 691 (8th Cir. 2023) (enforcing exhaustion
requirement when petitioner’s counsel failed to present argument to BIA); Quijano-
Duran v. Bondi, 172 F.4th 991, 995 (8th Cir. 2026) (stating that conclusory
allegations are insufficient to preserve an issue for BIA review); Garcia-Moctezuma
v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 863, 868 (8th Cir. 2018) (“Enforcing the doctrine of waiver is
particularly appropriate here, where ‘the administrative proceedings before both the
Immigration Court and the BIA were adversarial, and [the petitioner] was
represented by counsel.’” (citation omitted)); Amaya v. Garland, 15 F.4th 976, 986
(9th Cir. 2021) (“Neither [petitioner’s] notice of appeal nor his attachment thereto
made a clear, non-conclusory argument in support of his claim[, so w]e cannot say
that the BIA ignored a clearly-identified due process argument.”).
Because the failure to exhaust the cognizable social group issue is dispositive
of his asylum claim, we decline to consider Yanez Orellana’s claim that the
Honduran government is unwilling or unable to protect him. See Baltti v. Sessions,
878 F.3d 240, 245 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (holding that petitioner’s waiver of
the of the nexus issue independently disposed of his asylum claim). Further,
Because Yanez Orellana did not meet the standards for asylum, he necessarily
cannot meet the more rigorous standard of proof for withholding of removal. See
Martin Martin v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1141, 1145 (8th Cir. 2019).
For the foregoing reasons, we deny the petition for review.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --