Courtnay Bell v. Baptist Health

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2395
___________________________
Juana Claudia Gonzalez-Raymundo
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
v.
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: February 14, 2023
Filed: February 17, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Juana Claudia Gonzalez-Raymundo petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed her appeal from

-- 1 of 2 --

the decision of an immigration judge denying her asylum and withholding of
removal.1
Upon careful consideration, we conclude substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that Gonzalez-Raymundo was not eligible for asylum because
she did not establish she had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of
a protected ground. See Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918, 920 (8th Cir. 2005), as
corrected (Sept. 21, 2005) (asylum eligibility requirements); Malonga v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 546, 550 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); see also Garcia-Moctezuma
v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 863, 869 (8th Cir. 2018) (this court will reverse only if it
determines that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the petitioner’s
proposed protected ground “actually and sufficiently motivated his persecutors
actions”); Alyas v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 756, 761 (8th Cir. 2005) (reasonableness of
a fear of future persecution is diminished when family members remain in the native
country unharmed). The court also concludes that substantial evidence supports the
agency’s denial of withholding-of-removal relief. See Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d
872, 881-82 (8th Cir. 2008).
The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1Gonzalez-Raymundo does not challenge the denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture, or the agency’s determination that she failed to establish
past persecution on account of a protected ground. Accordingly, any challenges have
been waived. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004)
(where claim is not raised or meaningfully argued in opening brief, it is deemed
waived).
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --