Filed: Sep. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-3854 _ Hector A. Romero; Sandra M. Romero, * * Petitioners, * Petition for Review of an * Order of the Immigration v. * and Naturalization Service. * John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the * [UNPUBLISHED] United States, * * Respondent. * _ Submitted: September 6, 2002 Filed: September 11, 2002 _ Before LOKEN, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Hector and Sandra Romero, Guatemalan citizens, petition for review of a final or
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-3854 _ Hector A. Romero; Sandra M. Romero, * * Petitioners, * Petition for Review of an * Order of the Immigration v. * and Naturalization Service. * John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the * [UNPUBLISHED] United States, * * Respondent. * _ Submitted: September 6, 2002 Filed: September 11, 2002 _ Before LOKEN, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Hector and Sandra Romero, Guatemalan citizens, petition for review of a final ord..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-3854
___________
Hector A. Romero; Sandra M. Romero, *
*
Petitioners, * Petition for Review of an
* Order of the Immigration
v. * and Naturalization Service.
*
John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the * [UNPUBLISHED]
United States, *
*
Respondent. *
___________
Submitted: September 6, 2002
Filed: September 11, 2002
___________
Before LOKEN, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Hector and Sandra Romero, Guatemalan citizens, petition for review of a final
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal of an
Immigration Judge’s decision finding them ineligible for asylum. The Romeros argue
that the BIA erred in dismissing their appeal, and that the BIA had a duty to ensure
that the Immigration Judge safeguarded against an unknowing waiver of voluntary
departure. Upon careful review, we deny the petition.
We agree with the BIA that the Romeros did not show past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution. See Feleke v. INS,
118 F.3d 594, 598 (8th
Cir. 1997). Further, we cannot consider the Romeros’ second argument because they
did not present it to the BIA. See Valadez-Salas v. INS,
721 F.2d 251, 252 (8th Cir.
1983) (per curiam).
Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-