Raymond James Morley v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1997
___________________________
Raymond James Morley
Petitioner
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States
Respondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: December 22, 2025
Filed: December 31, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Bahamian citizen Raymond James Morley petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252, this court denies the petition.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
The BIA dismissed Morley’s appeal from the decision of an immigration
judge (IJ) denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). First, Morley argues the IJ’s determination that
he was firmly resettled in Canada did not preclude relief in the form of withholding
of removal or CAT protection. But the BIA did not consider his resettlement when
it denied him relief from removal on the merits alone. See Malonga v. Holder, 621
F.3d 757, 764 (8th Cir. 2010) (this court reviews BIA’s decision as final agency
decision). And Morley has waived any challenge to the denial of asylum and
withholding of removal by failing to challenge the BIA’s determination that he did
not establish a nexus between any harm he experienced or feared and a protected
ground. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1); 1231(b)(3)(A); Baltti v.
Sessions, 878 F.3d 240, 245 (8th Cir. 2017) (the lack of a nexus is a sufficient reason
to deny an asylum application); Gonzalez Cano v. Lynch, 809 F.3d 1056, 1059 (8th
Cir. 2016) (withholding of removal properly denied where petitioner fails to
establish nexus). Morley also argues that his removal to the Bahamas violated the
United States’ non-refoulement obligations. Given that he failed to establish an
entitlement to withholding of removal on the merits, however, Morley cannot
establish his removal violates non-refoulement principles. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(A); Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095, 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2011)
(explaining Congress’s incorporation of non-refoulement obligations into § 1231).
Next, Morley argues that he was denied due process in connection with the
agency’s CAT determination because he was not provided a meaningful opportunity
“to present or receive a CAT-specific adjudication.” This argument is unsupported
by the record. The agency afforded him a meaningful opportunity to present his CAT
claim through testimony and written submissions, and rendered a CAT-specific
adjudication, independent of its asylum and withholding-of-removal analysis. See
Alva-Arellano v. Lynch, 811 F.3d 1064, 1066 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review; to
establish that a removal hearing violated due process, noncitizen must demonstrate
both a fundamental procedural error and prejudice).

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Finally, we conclude that section 1252(g) deprives this court of jurisdiction
over Morley’s claims for any compensation. See Silva v. United States, 866 F.3d 938,
940–41 (8th Cir. 2017).
The petition is denied.1 See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1 Morley also suggests he intends to file actions under the Torture Victim
Protection Act and Federal Tort Claims Act. The court declines to address the
statements as they fail to present a matter that is ripe for review. See Parrish v.
Dayton, 761 F.3d 873, 875–76 (8th Cir. 2014) (claim is not ripe for adjudication if
it “rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed
may not occur at all.”) (citations omitted).

-- 3 of 3 --