United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-3260 ___________________________ Miriam Lizette Rodriguez Morales; P.C.J.R.; M.A.J.R.; V.S.V.R. lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: June 15, 2022 Filed: July 7, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Miriam Lizette Rodriguez Morales and her children, P.C.J.R., M.A.J.R., V.S.V.R., who are natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA dismissed their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying termination of the proceedings, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 Rodriguez Morales challenges the agency’s decision on various grounds. Upon careful consideration, we deny the petition for the following reasons. Rodriguez Morales first challenges the agency’s jurisdiction over her removal proceedings, but her argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2019); see also Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 709 n.2 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). The agency did not err when it denied her motion to terminate the proceedings. Next, Rodriguez Morales seeks remand because the immigration judge took administrative notice of a country conditions report for Guatemala and Rodriguez Morales is from Mexico. But the BIA did not err in concluding this was a non- prejudicial clerical error, as the immigration judge referenced the Mexican report throughout the proceedings. Cf. Reyes-Morales v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 937, 943 (8th Cir. 2006) (finding a citation to the wrong regulatory provision to be “purely ministerial and therefore harmless” where the BIA used the correct controlling language to support its analysis). Finally, Rodriguez Morales argues that the BIA erred in denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. As to the asylum claim, the BIA assumed that Rodriguez Morales’s proposed particular social groups (PSGs) were cognizable but concluded that she failed to demonstrate a nexus to any statutorily protected ground, including her PSGs. Substantial evidence supports this conclusion. See Silvestre-Giron v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1114, 1119 n.3 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of 1 Because Rodriguez Morales designated her children as derivative beneficiaries on her asylum application, we refer to her as the lead petitioner. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A)-(B) (child may be granted asylum if accompanying principal noncitizen was granted asylum and child was under 21 years of age at date parent applied for asylum). There are no derivative benefits for withholding of removal or CAT relief. See Fuentes v. Barr, 969 F.3d 865, 868 n.1 (8th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). -2- review). Rodriguez Morales was threatened by an anonymous caller after she reported an attempted kidnapping to the police. But a claimant is not entitled to asylum where a fear of persecution is due to “a personal grudge” rather than the claimant’s “status as a member of the social group.” See Martinez-Galarza v. Holder, 782 F.3d 990, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals