Dionicio Toj v. Merrick B. Garland ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3113
___________________________
Dionicio Toj
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
v.
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: March 29, 2023
Filed: April 3, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Dionicio Toj petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA denied Toj’s request to terminate the
proceedings based on a purportedly defective Notice to Appear and affirmed an
immigration judge’s decision denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
We conclude that Toj’s challenge to the agency’s jurisdiction over his removal
proceedings based on his purportedly defective Notice to Appear is foreclosed by this
court’s precedent. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2019); see also
Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 709 n.2 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).
We also conclude that the agency did not err by denying asylum. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1) (eligibility requirements). Substantial evidence
supports the finding that Toj failed to demonstrate the requisite nexus between any
persecution or feared persecution and his race or membership in his proposed
particular social group. See id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (asylum applicant must show the
claimed protected ground “was or will be at least one central reason” for persecution);
Silvestre-Giron v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1114, 1119 & n.3 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of
review); see also Tino, 13 F.4th at 710 (upholding adverse nexus finding when
petitioner repeatedly testified aggressor targeted her for extortion, not her “indigenous
tribal group of K’iche”); Martinez-Galarza v. Holder, 782 F.3d 990, 993-94 (8th Cir.
2015) (concluding that actions motivated by purely personal retribution do not
establish the requisite nexus for an asylum claim). The failure to establish a nexus
to a protected ground was dispositive of Toj’s asylum and withholding-of-removal
claims, so we do not reach his other arguments. See Tino, 13 F.4th at 710; de la Rosa
v. Barr, 943 F.3d 1171, 1174 (8th Cir. 2019). Finally, substantial evidence also
supports the denial of Toj’s CAT claim, which was based on the same allegations as
his other claims. See Martin Martin v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1141, 1145 (8th Cir. 2019)
(explaining that the CAT standard is more onerous than the standards for asylum or
withholding of removal).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-