Filed: Apr. 13, 2020
Latest Update: Apr. 13, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 19-2499 _ Catarina Lopez-Tercero lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Petitioner v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent _ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals _ Submitted: April 8, 2020 Filed: April 13, 2020 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Catarina Lopez-Tercero petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immi
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 19-2499 _ Catarina Lopez-Tercero lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Petitioner v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent _ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals _ Submitted: April 8, 2020 Filed: April 13, 2020 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Catarina Lopez-Tercero petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immig..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 19-2499
___________________________
Catarina Lopez-Tercero
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Petitioner
v.
William P. Barr, Attorney General of United States
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: April 8, 2020
Filed: April 13, 2020
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Catarina Lopez-Tercero petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals, which upheld an immigration judge’s denial of asylum and
withholding of removal. The agency’s conclusion that Lopez-Tercero did not
demonstrate past persecution, and the agency’s denial of relief under the Convention
Against Torture, are not before this court because Lopez-Tercero did not address
those issues in her brief. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft,
367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th
Cir. 2004).
Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the agency did not err in
determining that Lopez-Tercero failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of membership in a particular social group, the only protected
ground she asserted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1); Miranda v. Sessions,
892 F.3d 940,
942-43 (standard of review). This court has held that the group Lopez-Tercero
proposed is not a cognizable particular social group, and Lopez-Tercero has offered
no evidence or argument that would compel a different result. See Tejado v. Holder,
776 F.3d 965, 970-71 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam); Matul-Hernandez v. Holder,
685
F.3d 707, 712-13 (8th Cir. 2012). As this issue is dispositive of Lopez-Tercero’s
asylum claim, we decline to address her other arguments. See De la Rosa v. Barr,
943
F.3d 1171, 1174 (8th Cir. 2019); Mayorga-Rosa v. Sessions,
888 F.3d 379, 385 (8th
Cir. 2018). Finally, because she failed to satisfy her burden of proof on her asylum
claim, we conclude that she has necessarily failed to satisfy the more rigorous
standard for withholding of removal. See Al Tawm v. Ashcroft,
363 F.3d 740, 744
(8th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R 47B.
______________________________
-2-