Marcos Miranda-Carreto, et al v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Pasco M. Bowman and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED) [4150011] [13-2504]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2504 ___________________________ Marcos Miranda-Carreto; Helia Carreto Hernandez lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: April 29, 2014 Filed: May 2, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan citizens Marcos Miranda-Carreto and Helia Carreto Hernandez petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding Appellate Case: 13-2504 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2014 Entry ID: 4150011 an immigration judge’s decision to deny them asylum and withholding of removal.1 After careful review, we first conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determinations regarding the untimeliness of the asylum application. See Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 989 (8th Cir. 2004) (explaining that the courts lack jurisdiction to review “the Attorney General’s determination that an alien did not demonstrate changed or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an asylum application”). We further conclude that the BIA appropriately denied withholding of removal because the group in question, which the petitioners describe as “individuals returning from the United States,” does not constitute a particular social group for purposes of withholding-of-removal eligibility. See Matul-Hernandez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 707, 713 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding that “‘Guatemalans returning from the United States who are perceived as wealthy’ is not a particular social group within the meaning of” the Immigration and Nationality Act); see also Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 754 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting that an immigration judge’s determination that an alien is ineligible for withholding of removal is a legal conclusion subject to de novo review). We deny the petition for review. ______________________________ 1 Petitioners also each applied for cancellation of removal, and Miranda-Carreto applied for relief under the Convention Against Torture, but their brief does not address these claims. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting that claims are waived if they are not meaningfully argued in an opening brief). -2- Appellate Case: 13-2504 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2014 Entry ID: 4150011

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?