Skip to main content


United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Dominga MIRANDA LORENZO; Tomasa Ciprian Miranda Petitioners v. William P. BARR Respondent

No. 18-3737

Decided: September 10, 2019

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. Chinedu I. Igbokwe, Banwo & Igbokwe Law Firm, Omaha, NE, for Petitioners Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent


Guatemalan citizen Dominga Miranda Lorenzo, individually and on behalf of her minor daughter Tomasa Ciprian Miranda, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed her appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying her request for asylum.1 Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition.

This court concludes that substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Miranda Lorenzo was not entitled to asylum. She did not show that she was unable or unwilling to return to Guatemala due to persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of a protected ground. See Mayorga-Rosa v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 379, 381-82 (8th Cir. 2018) (asylum requirements); Malonga v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 546, 550 (8th Cir. 2008) (questions of immigration law are reviewed de novo; factual findings will not be reversed unless petitioner shows evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could fail to find in petitioner’s favor); see also Sholla v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 946, 951 (8th Cir. 2007) (persecution is an extreme concept involving the threat of death, or the threat or infliction of torture or injury to one’s person or liberty). Miranda Lorenzo’s argument concerning economic persecution is not properly before this court. See Barillas-Mendez v. Lynch, 790 F.3d 787, 790 (8th Cir. 2015) (where petitioner never argued to agency that alleged economic deprivation constituted persecution alone or in combination with other harms, concluding issue was unexhausted).

The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.


1.   The IJ’s denial of withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture is not before this panel. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (claim not raised in opening brief is waived). Because Tomasa Miranda’s application is derivative of Miranda Lorenzo’s application, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A), all subsequent references are to Miranda Lorenzo.


Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law

Docket No: No. 18-3737

Decided: September 10, 2019

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

Sign up

Learn About the Law

Get help with your legal needs

FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

Learn more about the law
Copied to clipboard