IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60772

Summary Calendar

OLIMPIA GARCIA MIRANDA, also known as Esmeralda Garcia Miranda,

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Cons. w/No. 18-60774

LESLY EUGENIA BARRIOS-GARCIA,

 Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

 Respondent

Cons. w/No. 18-60775

JOSE CARLOS BARRIOS-GARCIA,

 Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

 Respondent

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 10, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60772 Document: 00515448280 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
No. 18-60772

c/w No. 18-60774

c/w No. 18-60775

2

Petitions for Review of Orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A206 179 655

BIA No. A202 004 099

BIA No. A202 004 100

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Olimpia Garcia Miranda and her two minor children, Lesly Eugenia 

Barrios-Garcia and Jose Carlos Barrios-Garcia, are natives and citizens of 

Guatemala.1 They applied for, inter alia, protection under the Convention 

Against Torture (CAT) based on Garcia Miranda’s fear of gang violence. The 

argument for relief is that unreported threats received from unidentified 

gangsters suffice to show entitlement to CAT relief in light of widespread 

violence in Guatemala. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their requests for 

relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed their appeal. 

Garcia Miranda timely petitioned for review in this court. 

When presented with a petition for review, we examine the propriety of 

the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s decision only insofar as the latter 

influenced the former. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s conclusions, we review both decisions. 

Id.

* 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.

1 The children’s claims are derivative of their mother’s claim. 

 Case: 18-60772 Document: 00515448280 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
No. 18-60772

c/w No. 18-60774

c/w No. 18-60775

3

To receive CAT relief, one must show “that it is more likely than not that 

he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 

C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); see Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002). For 

these purposes, torture is defined as the intentional infliction of physical or 

mental suffering with the acquiescence of a public official. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.18(a)(1); see Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates, 846 F.3d 806, 812 (5th Cir. 2017). 

The conclusion that an alien is ineligible for CAT relief is a factual 

finding reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 

470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). To meet this standard, the petitioner must 

show that the evidence is so compelling that a finding contrary to that of the 

BIA is demanded, not just supported. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 

511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Garcia Miranda has not 

shown that officials acquiesced in the threats of which she complains. See

Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885, 892 (5th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, she has not 

shown that the evidence demands a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on 

the issue whether she should receive CAT relief. See Iruegas-Valdez, 846 F.3d 

at 812; Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518. The petition for review is DENIED. 

 Case: 18-60772 Document: 00515448280 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/10/2020