Case ID: f-appx_414/html/0730-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vanya Adelia ONIONS, Petitioner, v. EriC H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-60038.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 2, 2011.
    Godson Emeka Anyanwu, Anyanwu & Associates, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
    Donald Anthony Couvillon, Esq., Tan-gerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Vanya Onions, a native and citizen of Malawi, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Onions asserted that she would be forced to undergo female genital mutilation, a ritual of her grandparents’ tribe, if she returned to Malawi.

An immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Onions’s claim, and the BIA affirmed, because she failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if she returned to Malawi and that Malawi officials would acquiesce in the torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b). The IJ and BIA noted that Onions had never been tortured, and there was no credible evidence that anyone had ever threatened her with genital mutilation. Further, Onions failed to show that she would be forced to return to her grandparents’ tribe and that she could not relocate to a safer part of Malawi.

Onions has failed to present any legal authority or facts to dispute the findings of the BIA or to demonstrate that the record compels a reversal. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir.2005). Accordingly, the petition is DENIED. Because Onions only sought protection under the CAT, we address only that claim and do not comment on any other asylum claim she might have brought. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.