United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-2271 ___________________________ Rosalia Juan Francisco, also known as Rosalia Juan-Francisco; Manuel Lisandro Juan Francisco, also known as Manuel Lisandro Juan-Francisco lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: December 18, 2020 Filed: December 23, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan native and citizen Rosalia Francisco, individually and on behalf of her minor son Manuel, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed her appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision denying her asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 Francisco challenges the denial of relief and repeats her argument, rejected by the BIA, that the immigration court never acquired jurisdiction over her proceedings because her Notice to Appear was deficient, citing Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U.S. ---, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). We do not consider new arguments that Francisco failed to present to the agency. See Chak Yiu Lui v. Holder, 600 F.3d 980, 984 (8th Cir. 2010). As a preliminary matter, we conclude that this court’s precedent, which we are bound to follow, forecloses Francisco’s jurisdictional argument. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2019) (concluding that Pereira decided a “narrow” issue relating to the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal and “had nothing to say” about when an IJ obtains jurisdiction over removal proceedings; an immigration court obtains jurisdiction over removal proceedings when a charging document (such as a Notice to Appear) is filed with the immigration court; and a Notice to Appear needs to provide the time, date, and place information only “where practicable,” based on applicable regulations); see also United States v. Escobar, 970 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (8th Cir. 2020) (reiterating that this court has repeatedly declined to overrule Ali). Even assuming Francisco meaningfully challenged the agency’s denial of asylum, see Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (explaining that a claim not meaningfully argued in an opening brief is deemed waived), we conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision, see Fuentes-Erazo v. Sessions, 848 F.3d 847, 852 (8th Cir. 2017) (explaining that the agency’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless a petitioner demonstrates the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion but compels it, in other words, 1 Because Manuel’s asylum application is derivative of his mother’s, all references are to Francisco. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A) (stating that a child may be granted asylum if the accompanying principal alien was granted 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- unless any reasonable fact finder would be compelled to conclude to the contrary). Specifically, even if her proposed particular social group of “Guatemalan women unable to leave ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals