United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1462 ___________________________ Sudmy Trinidad-Alvarado, Petitioner v. William P. Barr, United States Attorney General, Respondent ____________ Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: November 19, 2020 Filed: December 7, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, ERICKSON and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. An Immigration Judge denied asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture to Sudmy Yanath Trinidad-Alvarado. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the IJ, dismissing the appeal. Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4), this court denies the petition for review. “We review administrative findings of fact, including credibility determinations, under the substantial-evidence standard.” Garcia v. Barr, 954 F.3d 1095, 1097 (8th Cir. 2020). “Under the substantial-evidence standard, we will affirm findings of fact unless ‘any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Id., citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “We will uphold the denial of asylum and withholding of removal if the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Prieto-Pineda v. Barr, 960 F.3d 516, 519 (8th Cir. 2020). “Only the BIA order is subject to our review, including the IJ’s findings and reasoning to the extent they were expressly adopted by the BIA.” Njong v. Whitaker, 911 F.3d 919, 922 (8th Cir. 2018). Trinidad-Alvarado argues she is eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief because members of M-18 Gang killed her father and may target her. Trinidad-Alvarado’s father died in 2010 while working security at a market in Guatemala. Two M-18 members were arrested. She did not return to the market for six years. When she did return, two M-18 members followed her and called out for her to “stop.” She ran to a bus, called in a police report, left town, but did not follow up on the report. She had no further contact with members of M-18 and left Guatemala a month later. She fears M-18 will target her because they killed her father. “Asylum may be granted, in relevant part, upon a showing of a well-founded fear of persecution on account of . . . membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, in the alien’s country of origin.” Prieto-Pineda, 960 F.3d at 520 (quotation omitted). “[I]n order to meet the requirements for persecution, the harm must be inflicted either by the government of a country or by persons or an organization that the government was unable or unwilling to control.” Id. This court has previously rejected asylum claims founded on speculative links between M-18 and family members. Id. Prieto-Pineda controls this case. On appeal, Trinidad-Alvarado does not attack the IJ’s finding on past persecution, only the BIA’s standard of review. -2- Trinidad-Alvarado argues the BIA erred by failing to review the IJ’s past persecution conclusion de novo. While the BIA’s order is not a model of clarity, there is no basis to conclude the BIA did not apply de novo review to the past persecution conclusion of the IJ. See ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals