Full Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 26-1501 ___________________________ Brianda Genchi Garcia lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Todd Blanche, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: November 4, 2026 Filed: November 9, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before STRAS, KOBES, and JUSTIN D. SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Brianda Genchi Garcia, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding both the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and its determination that Genchi Garcia abandoned her opportunity to seek cancellation of removal.1 We deny Genchi Garcia’s petition for review. After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ arguments, we conclude the BIA did not err by upholding the denial of withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (requirements for withholding of removal); Miranda v. Sessions, 892 F.3d 940, 943 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review). We agree that Genchi Garcia’s proposed particular social groups are not cognizable as they lack particularity and social distinction. See Fuentes v. Barr, 969 F.3d 865, 871 (8th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (particularity requires a proposed group to be defined by characteristics providing a clear benchmark for determining membership; the group must be discrete and have definable boundaries, and it must not be amorphous, overbroad, diffuse, or subjective); Pacheco-Mota v. Garland, 84 F.4th 762, 766 (8th Cir. 2023) (denying withholding of removal when social groups lacked distinction and particularity because the term “children” is “vague and amorphous” and the record lacked evidence of social visibility to be perceived as a group by society); see also De la Rosa v. Barr, 943 F.3d 1171, 1174-75 (8th Cir. 2019) (declining to address whether government was unable or unwilling to protect a noncitizen, after concluding he failed to show persecution on account of membership in a particular social group). We further conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT protection. See Escobar v. Garland, 55 F.4th 662, 670 (8th Cir. 2022) (government does not acquiesce in torture merely because it is aware of torture but powerless to stop it); see also Agha v. Holder, 743 F.3d 609, 615 (8th Cir. 2014) (separate analysis for CAT protection is necessary only when the evidence of torture is “unrelated” to asylum and withholding of removal claims). Finally, we conclude Genchi Garcia was 1 The denial of asylum is not before the panel. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (claim not raised or meaningfully argued in opening brief is waived). -2- not deprived of due process when the IJ deemed her application for cancellation of removal abandoned. See Li Yun Lin v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1164, 1166 (8th Cir. 2008) (no due process violation where BIA demonstrated “careful consideration” of motion and provided rational explanation for decision); see also Arellano-Hernandez v. Holder, 564 F.3d 906, 910 (8th Cir. 2009) (BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming IJ’s decision that cancellation of removal application submitted seven months past the filing deadline was untimely; “IJ has the authority to deem applications waived when submitted after the set deadlines”). The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -3-