United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2472 ___________________________ Efren Uriostegui-Teran 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: June 14, 2023 Filed: July 6, 2023 ____________ Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ GRUENDER, Circuit Judge. Efren Uriostegui-Teran petitions for review after the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed his appeal. We deny his petition. I. Uriostegui-Teran is a rancher from Mexico who fears returning. He gives several reasons why. Twice, his uncles were kidnapped and held for ransom. The second time, the kidnapping was reported to the police. And though the police said they would “try to help,” they were ultimately unable to “do[] anything.” On another occasion, someone took pictures of Uriostegui-Teran’s family home and then demanded money and threatened to kidnap a family member. And once, when he was driving from his family’s ranch to his home, two vans began chasing him. The vans tried to run him off the road, so he fired a weapon at his unknown assailants. After they had driven off, he drove to a police station and requested an escort to the bus station, which the police provided. Later, someone called Uriostegui-Teran’s father and threatened to kill Uriostegui-Teran. Finally, someone once left a sign at his sister’s business demanding money. Shortly after Uriostegui-Teran entered the United States, the Attorney General began removal proceedings against him. Uriostegui-Teran conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). He claimed that he was persecuted on account of his membership in the following social groups: (1) “Cattle ranchers/farmers in Mexico”; (2) “Landowners in Mexico”; (3) “Business owners in Mexico”; (4) “Family of cattle ranchers/farmers in Mexico”; (5) “Family of landowners in Mexico”; (6) “Family of business owners in Mexico”; (7) “The Uriostegui family”; (8) “The Uriostegui-Teran family”; (9) “Family of Juan Uriostegui Jimenez”; (10) “Family of gang kidnapping victims”; (11) “Family of gang extortion victims”; and (12) “Deported Americanized Mexicans/ponchos.” The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied his applications. As to asylum and withholding of removal, the IJ concluded that Uriostegui-Teran’s proposed social groups were not cognizable and that, even if some were, he failed to establish a nexus between them and the alleged persecution. As for CAT relief, the IJ found that Uriostegui-Teran failed to establish that, if he were returned to Mexico, he would be -2- tortured with the acquiescence of a public official. Uriostegui-Teran appealed to the BIA, which adopted the IJ’s decision. The BIA explained that it agreed with the IJ’s social-group-cognizability and nexus rulings, as well as the IJ’s determination regarding CAT relief. The BIA also rejected Uriostegui-Teran’s challenge to its jurisdiction. Uriostegui-Teran appeals. II. We review the denial of an application for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief for substantial evidence, Rivera Menjivar v. Garland, 27 F.4th 638, 641 (8th Cir. 2022), and we review questions of law …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals