United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

No. 22-60439

Summary Calendar

____________

Alba Aracely Amaya-Hernandez; Jefferson Josael LunaAmaya, 

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency Nos. A208 752 921, 

A208 752 922

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

Alba Aracely Amaya-Hernandez and her minor son, both natives and 

citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a decision of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the denial by the 

immigration judge of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 19, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60439 Document: 00516756630 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2023
No. 22-60439

2

relief under the Convention against Torture (CAT).1 We review denials of 

asylum, withholding, and CAT claims for substantial evidence. Chen 

v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, we may 

not disturb the BIA’s decision unless the evidence “compels” a contrary 

conclusion. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). We 

consider the IJ’s decision only insofar as it influences the BIA. Id.

Amaya-Hernandez points to no record evidence undermining the 

agency’s conclusion that her assailants’ motive was to obtain information 

regarding murder of a state prosecutor and they thus targeted AmayaHernandez only as a means to that end, unrelated to her family membership. 

The evidence thus does not compel a conclusion contrary to the agency’s 

determination that her nuclear family membership was not “one central 

reason” for the incident. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 

7 F.4th 265, 271 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022); OrellanaMonson, 685 F.3d at 518. A nexus between the harm and a protected ground 

is an essential element of asylum and withholding claims. See VazquezGuerra, 7 F.4th at 269. We therefore do not consider Amaya-Hernandez’s 

contentions that the attack on her constituted persecution, that her assailants 

were police officers, that her particular social group is cognizable, and that 

she faces future persecution. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). 

We likewise do not consider Amaya-Hernandez’s assertion that, as to 

withholding, the BIA erred by failing to shift the burden to the Government 

to show “a fundamental change in circumstances in El Salvador or that 

relocation would be reasonable.” See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. Because 

Amaya-Hernandez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily 

_____________________

1 Because Amaya-Hernandez’s minor son is a rider on and derivative beneficiary of 

his mother’s application for relief, we refer herein only to Amaya-Hernandez.

Case: 22-60439 Document: 00516756630 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2023
No. 22-60439

3

also cannot meet the requirements for withholding of removal. See Jaco v. 

Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 401 (5th Cir. 2021); Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518.

As to CAT relief, Amaya-Hernandez’s conclusory and unsupported 

assertions fail to compel a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the 

question whether she more likely than not will be tortured with governmental 

acquiescence if repatriated. See Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 

228 (5th Cir. 2019). Because Amaya-Hernandez failed to show the requisite 

state acquiescence or involvement, the BIA did not need to address the

likelihood of harm rising to the level of torture. See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 

25. 

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 22-60439 Document: 00516756630 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/19/2023