United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1624 ___________________________ Heidi Rivera Menjivar Petitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States Respondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: November 19, 2021 Filed: March 3, 2022 ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ KOBES, Circuit Judge. Heidi Rivera Menjivar, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge denied her requests, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. We deny her petition for review. I. Rivera Menjivar grew up in El Salvador. When she was 10 years old, her family started attending an evangelical church. Rivera Menjivar was increasingly involved with the church and eventually became a youth leader. She and other youth group members, including her sister, preached to young people in the community. One of their missions was to help people leave gangs. Because of these activities, the pastor of the church received a letter from someone warning him to protect the youth group. Rivera Menjivar left El Salvador, fearing reprisals from the gang for her work as a church youth leader. When she was 17 years old, she came to the United States and filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Rivera Menjivar compiled documentary evidence for her hearing, including affidavits from her sister and pastor, and reports about the conditions in El Salvador. The IJ received this evidence late and took about 45 minutes to review it. After considering this evidence and hearing Rivera Menjivar’s testimony, the IJ denied her application for asylum, finding that she failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than that required for asylum, the IJ summarily denied this relief as well. Finally, the IJ denied Rivera Menjivar’s request for CAT protection, holding that she failed to show that she was ever personally harmed or threatened. Rivera Menjivar appealed the IJ’s decision, claiming that she was denied due process because the IJ failed to fully consider her evidence. She also appealed the denial of her applications, arguing that she successfully established a fear of future persecution based on her religious activities and gender, and that she proved that the government acquiesces to gang activity. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision in total and held that there was no due process violation. Rivera Menjivar seeks judicial review of that decision, arguing that the BIA erred by: (1) denying asylum and -2- withholding of removal; (2) denying CAT protection; and (3) finding no due process violation. II. In reviewing immigration decisions, “we ordinarily review only the BIA’s decision.” Etenyi v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1003, 1006 (8th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). But “we also review the IJ’s decision as part of the final agency action if the BIA adopted the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals