United States v. Christopher Weigert

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3314
___________________________
Milvia Aracely Perez Lopez De Hernandez; E.A.P.
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: April 2, 2026
Filed: April 3, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizens Milvia Aracely Perez Lopez De Hernandez and E.A.P.,
her minor child, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA). An immigration judge denied Perez Lopez De Hernandez’s application for

-- 1 of 2 --

asylum and withholding of removal, and the BIA dismissed her appeal from that
decision.1
We conclude substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Perez Lopez De Hernandez’s membership in her proposed particular social groups
was not a “central reason” for the harm she suffered or feared. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (setting out the “one central reason” nexus standard),
1101(a)(42)(A) (defining “refugee”); Silvestre-Giron v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1114, 1117-
19, 1119 n.3 (8th Cir. 2020) (explaining that this court deferentially reviews the
record as a whole for substantial evidence and will not overturn the agency’s nexus
finding unless the record evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder
could fail to find in her favor); see also Aguilar-Hernandez v. Bondi, 163 F.4th 537,
539-40 (8th Cir. 2026). To the extent she argues that the BIA failed to properly
review the immigration judge’s factual findings or failed to provide sufficient
reasoning in its decision for appellate review, we find those arguments to be without
merit. See, e.g., Averianova v. Holder, 592 F.3d 931, 936 (8th Cir. 2010); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(d)(3)(i)-(ii); Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526, 532 (BIA 2011). Finally,
because her failure to establish a nexus to a protected ground is dispositive of her
claims for asylum and withholding of removal, see Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708,
710 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam), we do not address her other arguments, see INS v.
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam); Silvestre-Giron, 949 F.3d at 1117.
Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1E.A.P. was a derivative applicant on Perez Lopez De Hernandez’s asylum
application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A); Fuentes v. Barr, 969 F.3d 865, 868 n.1
(8th Cir. 2020) (per curiam).
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --