United States v. Nicole Roy

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2524
___________________________
Ana Yessenia Ponce-Lopez; Mario Enriquez Paz-Guevara; M.J.P.P.
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners
v.
Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: August 4, 2026
Filed: August 7, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and JUSTIN D. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Honduran citizens Mario Enriquez Paz-Guevara and Ana Yessenia
Ponce-Lopez, and their minor child, M.J.P.P. (collectively, Petitioners), petition for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA dismissed
their appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision denying them asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

-- 1 of 2 --

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude
that the agency properly denied Petitioners asylum. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42),
1158(b)(1) (asylum eligibility requirements). Substantial evidence supports the
conclusion that Petitioners failed to establish past persecution. See Cano v. Barr, 956
F.3d 1034, 1039 (8th Cir. 2020) (persecution involves infliction or credible threat of
death, torture, or injury; it is an extreme concept that excludes low-level intimidation
and harassment) (citations and quotations omitted). A reasonable factfinder could
also conclude that Petitioners failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of their proposed particular social group. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (asylum applicant must show 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) (whether noncitizen established the requisite nexus
is a factual determination reviewed for substantial evidence); Baltti v. Sessions, 878
F.3d 240, 245 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (the lack of a nexus is dispositive of an
asylum claim). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of withholding
of removal and CAT protection. See 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” 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).
The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --