Juana Toj Solis; J.G.L.T. v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3066
___________________________
Juana Toj Solis; J.G.L.T.
Petitioners
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States
Respondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: May 6, 2025
Filed: May 9, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizens Juana Toj Solis and her son, J.G.L.T., petition for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an
immigration judge’s decision denying Toj Solis’s application for asylum,

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT).1 Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition.
After careful review, we conclude that the BIA 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 Toj Solis failed to demonstrate the requisite nexus
between any persecution or feared persecution and her race or membership in a
particular social group. 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 is dispositive of Toj Solis’s asylum and withholding of removal claims. 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 (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). Finally, the denial of her claim
for CAT protection is unexhausted, as Toj Solis did not challenge the denial in her
BIA brief. See Camishi v. Holder, 616 F.3d 883, 886 (8th Cir. 2010).
The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1 Because J.G.L.T.’s asylum application is derivative of his mother’s (and
there are no derivative benefits associated with withholding of removal or CAT
protection), all references are to Toj Solis. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A) (child may
be granted asylum if accompanying principal noncitizen was granted asylum);
Fuentes v. Barr, 969 F.3d 865, 868 n.1 (8th Cir. 2020) (per curiam).

-- 2 of 2 --