United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-60635

Summary Calendar

____________

Rafael Antonio Ayala-Flores, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A206 801 476

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Rafael Antonio Ayala-Flores, a native and citizen of Honduras,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing 

his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) ordering him removed 

and denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60635 Document: 00516795328 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2023
No. 22-60635

2

We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s ruling only to the 

extent it influenced that of the BIA. E.g., Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 

(5th Cir. 2009). Factual determinations that an alien is ineligible for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and CAT protection are reviewed for substantial 

evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Under this 

standard, we may not disturb the BIA’s decision unless the evidence 

“compels” a contrary conclusion. Id. (emphasis in original) (citation 

omitted). 

For his asylum claim, Ayala had the burden of showing he suffered 

past-persecution or had “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of” 

a protected ground. Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 360 (5th Cir. 2014) 

(citation omitted). In this context, “on account of” means the protected 

ground “was or will be at least one central reason” for the persecution. Id. 

(citation omitted).

Ayala maintains a man believed to have killed his father threatened 

Ayala in response to his filing a police report regarding the murder. 

Assuming this amounted to persecution, Ayala fails to demonstrate the 

threats were sufficiently related to a protected ground. Rather, the record

supports the BIA’s finding that the man was motivated by retaliation against 

Ayala for filing the report and to avoid prosecution. Substantial evidence 

therefore supports the BIA’s finding Ayala failed to show the requisite nexus 

for asylum. See id at 364.

Because Ayala fails to establish his eligibility for asylum, he cannot 

meet the higher burden for withholding of removal. E.g., Dayo v. Holder, 687 

F.3d 653, 658–59 (5th Cir. 2012). Further, because his failure to demonstrate 

the requisite nexus is dispositive as to asylum and withholding of removal, we

need not address his remaining arguments concerning those forms of relief. 

See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and 

Case: 22-60635 Document: 00516795328 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2023
No. 22-60635

3

agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is 

unnecessary to the results they reach.”). 

Finally, he has not shown that the evidence compels a finding he

would more likely than not be tortured with governmental acquiescence if 

repatriated; therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denying CAT 

relief. See Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017). 

DENIED.

Case: 22-60635 Document: 00516795328 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/21/2023