Filed: Apr. 02, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 09-2565 _ Maria Elubina Ramos; Nuria * Marisela Umana Ramos, * * Petitioners, * * Petition for Review of v. * an Order of the Board * of Immigration Appeals. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General * of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. * _ Submitted: March 29, 2010 Filed: April 2, 2010 _ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan citizens Maria Ramos and her daughter Nuria Ramos petition for
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 09-2565 _ Maria Elubina Ramos; Nuria * Marisela Umana Ramos, * * Petitioners, * * Petition for Review of v. * an Order of the Board * of Immigration Appeals. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General * of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. * _ Submitted: March 29, 2010 Filed: April 2, 2010 _ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan citizens Maria Ramos and her daughter Nuria Ramos petition for ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2565
___________
Maria Elubina Ramos; Nuria *
Marisela Umana Ramos, *
*
Petitioners, *
* Petition for Review of
v. * an Order of the Board
* of Immigration Appeals.
Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General *
of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Respondent. *
___________
Submitted: March 29, 2010
Filed: April 2, 2010
___________
Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizens Maria Ramos and her daughter Nuria Ramos petition for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed an
immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture.1 We conclude that the denial of asylum and related relief
was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, see Samedov v.
Gonzales,
422 F.3d 704, 706-09 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review), and we see no
1
Petitioners do not challenge the denial of cancellation of removal.
indication in the record that petitioners’ due process rights were violated, see Flores
v. Ashcroft,
354 F.3d 727, 729-30 (8th Cir. 2003) (de novo standard of review).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
______________________________
-2-