United States v. Antwanae Morgan

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3224
___________________________
Manuela Pastor Tipaz De Lopez
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: June 11, 2024
Filed: June 18, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Manuela Pastor Tipaz de Lopez petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA denied Pastor Tipaz’s
request to terminate the proceedings based on a purportedly defective Notice to
Appear and affirmed an immigration judge’s decision denying her asylum,

-- 1 of 2 --

withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against
Torture (CAT).
We conclude that Pastor Tipaz’s challenge to the agency’s jurisdiction over her
proceedings based on her purportedly defective Notice to Appear is foreclosed by
circuit precedent. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2019).
We also conclude that the agency did not err by denying asylum. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1) (eligibility requirements). Substantial evidence
supports the finding that Pastor Tipaz failed to demonstrate the requisite nexus
between any persecution or feared persecution and her membership in her proposed
particular social groups. See id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(I) (asylum applicant must establish
the claimed protected ground “was or will be at least one central reason” for
persecution); Silvestre-Giron v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1114, 1119 & n.3 (8th Cir. 2020)
(nexus is a factual determination reviewed for substantial evidence and will not be
reversed unless the record evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder
could fail to find in petitioner’s favor). The failure to establish a nexus to a protected
ground was dispositive of Pastor Tipaz’s asylum and withholding of removal claims,
so we do not reach her other arguments. See Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 710 (8th
Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (where substantial evidence supported determination that
noncitizen failed to demonstrate nexus between persecution and protected ground,
failure was dispositive of asylum claim); 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 of persecution” standard for withholding of
removal; separate analysis for CAT claim is required only when there is evidence
noncitizen may be tortured for reasons unrelated to asylum and withholding of
removal claims).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --