Iris Quezada-Liborio v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1321
___________________________
Iris Quezada-Liborio
Petitioner
v.
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States
Respondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: December 12, 2023
Filed: January 5, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Iris Quezada-Liborio and her daughter are citizens of Mexico who entered the
United States without valid entry documents. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I).
The Department of Homeland Security quickly began removal proceedings against
them. The two conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
An Immigration Judge denied the applications and ordered that the pair be
removed to Mexico, so Quezada-Liborio and her daughter appealed to the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). While the appeal was pending, they filed a motion
to remand because Quezada-Liborio’s daughter had become eligible for an
adjustment of status. A few months later, the BIA ruled on the motion and decided
the appeal. It severed Quezada-Liborio’s case from her daughter’s, granted only her
daughter’s motion to remand, and dismissed Quezada-Liborio’s appeal. The BIA
concluded that Quezada-Liborio had not shown entitlement to asylum, withholding
of removal, or protection under the CAT. Quezada-Liborio now petitions for review
of the BIA’s decision, attacking only the BIA’s rejection of her asylum claim and
the denial of the motion to remand as to her.
We reject Quezada-Liborio’s argument that the BIA erred in determining her
asylum claim. See Juarez-Vincente v. Garland, 85 F.4th 1258, 1262 (8th Cir. 2023)
(standard of review). To obtain asylum, Quezada-Liborio must show that she is a
refugee, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A), meaning that she is unwilling or unable to
return to her home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion,” id. § 1101(a)(42)(A). In this context,
“persecution” means “a harm that is inflicted either by the government of a country
or by persons or an organization that the government was unable or unwilling to
control.” Juarez-Vincente, 85 F.4th at 1262 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Quezada-Liborio claims that, contrary to the BIA’s determination, the
evidence shows that she possesses a well-founded fear of gang violence if she returns
to Mexico. Assuming for the sake of argument that Quezada-Liborio is correct, she
nevertheless fails to establish a well-founded fear of “persecution.” See id. The BIA
concluded that Quezada-Liborio “did not show that the government of Mexico was
unable or unwilling to protect her” from gang violence. Because she does not
challenge this determination, her asylum claim necessarily fails. See Coreas-Chavez
v. Garland, 52 F.4th 413, 416 (8th Cir. 2022); see also Aguilar v. Garland, 60 F.4th
401, 407 (8th Cir. 2023).

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Quezada-Liborio also asserts that the BIA abused its discretion when it denied
the motion to remand as to her because it failed to offer specific reasons for doing
so. See Campos Julio v. Barr, 953 F.3d 550, 553 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of
review). We disagree. The four-sentence motion stated only that her daughter is
“now eligible for an adjustment of status.” The BIA considered that argument and
explained why it justified remanding only her daughter’s case for further
proceedings. The BIA’s explanation addressed the sole argument raised in the
motion and sufficed to show why the BIA decided to dismiss Quezada-Liborio’s
appeal rather than remand. See Gallegos v. Garland, 25 F.4th 1087, 1092 (8th Cir.
2022) (“We only require reasons that are specific enough that a reviewing court can
appreciate the reasoning behind the decision and perform the requisite judicial
review.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Petition denied.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --