United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2803 ___________________________ Wendy Araceli Castanion-Lopez; A.J.G.C. Petitioners v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States Respondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: March 14, 2023 Filed: July 11, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Wendy Araceli Castanion-Lopez and her son, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying their motion to remand and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision ordering them removed. Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petition. I. Castanion-Lopez fled with her son to the United States from Guatemala after a group protesting the mayor of her town wrongfully suspected Castanion-Lopez of being involved in the killing of one of its members and retaliated against her. Castanion-Lopez and her son entered the United States without being admitted on or about November 7, 2016. The Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear for both Castanion-Lopez and her son, charging them with removability. Castanion-Lopez ultimately conceded removability but applied for relief in the form of asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). She listed her son as a derivative applicant. In her pre- hearing briefing, Castanion-Lopez claimed persecution on the basis of her political opinion and membership in two particular social groups, specifically, “Guatemalans who are witnesses to mob killings and Guatemalans who are believed to have participated in mob killings.” However, at her hearing, Castanion-Lopez’s attorney waived her claim for relief based on a political opinion and explained that her son was not requesting relief apart from her asylum application. The IJ first found Castanion-Lopez’s application for asylum untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (requiring that a noncitizen file an application for asylum “within 1 year after the date of the [noncitizen]’s arrival in the United States”). Nonetheless, the IJ addressed the merits of Castanion-Lopez’s claims. First, it determined that the harm she suffered did not constitute persecution. It then found that Castanion-Lopez’s purported particular social groups were not cognizable. Finally, it determined that the Guatemalan government did not acquiesce in the mob’s conduct and that Castanion-Lopez’s fears of future persecution were not well- founded. Accordingly, the IJ denied her application for asylum and statutory withholding of removal. The IJ did not discuss her claim for protection under CAT. Castanion-Lopez appealed the decision to the BIA with new counsel, generally challenging the IJ’s decision and requesting relief on the basis of her former attorney’s performance. She also filed a motion to remand based on her -2- purported membership in the class recognized in the Rojas v. Johnson, 305 F. Supp. 3d 1176 (W.D. Wash. 2018) settlement, which extended the one-year filing deadline for asylum applications for certain noncitizens. The BIA addressed the challenges in a single order. First, the BIA found that Castanion-Lopez failed to challenge the IJ’s finding …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals