# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 60705 Summary Calendar

**Edwin Eduardo Ibarr a-Sanchez,** 

Petitioner **,**

versus **Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,** Respondent

**.**

Petition s for Review of Order s of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A046 302 870

Before **Smith** , **Southwick** , and **Douglas** , Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  *
Edwin Eduardo Ibarra

- Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico and former lawful permanent resident of the United States , petitions this court for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Ibarra

- Sanchez also petitions for review of the

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

. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 13, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60705 Document: 00516644335 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2023No. 21

- 60705

2 BIA’s denial of his motions for reconsideration and remand . Because Ibarra

Sanchez is proceeding pro se , we liberally construe his filings. See Monsonyem v. Gar land , 36 F.4th 639, 645 (5th Cir. 2022). In seeking review of the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief , Ibarra

- Sanchez relies primarily on new evidence that was not properly before the BIA

. See Enriquez

- Gutierrez v. Holder , 612 F.3d 400, 409 (5 th Cir. 2010)

. W e c onsider that evidence only in relation to his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and his requests for a remand and reconsideration

. F actual findings are reviewed for “substantial evidence.” Wang v. Holder , 569 F.3d 531, 53 6

– 3 7 (5th Cir. 2009)

. The substantial evidence standard is deferential, meaning that “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
S ubstantial evide nce supports the agency ’s determination that Ibarra

Sanchez f ailed to show that “it is more likely than not” that his life or freedom as a Jehovah’s Witness would be threatened by persecution if he

were returned to Mexico

. See Lopez

- Perez v. Garland , 35 F.4th 953, 957 (5th Cir. 2022) (quotation marks and citations omitted ). Further, Ibarra

Sanchez’s contention that , for purposes of withholding of removal , his proposed group of non

- Spanish speakers with substance addiction qualifies as a parti cular social group is unsupported by the record properly before the agency
. The argument thus does not compel a conclusion contrary to the agency’s determination that he failed to show either a particular social group

or the required nexus to his fear ed p ersecution

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

. We now consider CAT relief . C ontrary to Ibarra

- Sanchez’s assertion, the BIA did not impose a requirement of past persecution because of a particular social group , but properly applied the correct standard for CAT Case: 21-60705 Document: 00516644335 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2023No. 21

- 60705

3 relief. See id. at 344

– 45 (reciting required showing for CAT relief). Moreover , the absence of an adverse credibility finding , and Ibarra

Sanchez’s bare contention that the BIA therefore should grant CAT relief , fail to compel the conclusion that he faced a likelihood of torture by or with government acquiescence if returned to Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)

. Ibarra

- Sanchez also contends that he had ineffective assistance of counsel

. T he BIA determined that the new evidence Ibarra

- Sanchez submitted to the BIA but which had not be introduced earlier by counsel did
not show counsel’s alleged errors regarding the evidence “were prejudicial to his case.” See Mai v. Gonzales , 473 F.3d 162, 165 (5t h Cir. 2006)

. The articles and reports, often only partially reproduced, and Ibarra

- Sanchez’s family’s affidavits , do no t indicate that he faced a “ clear probability ” of future persecution on account of a protected ground or likely torture by or with the acquiescence of Mexican officials. See Zhang , 432 F.3d at 344

– 45. Th us, th e proposed evidence fails to compel the conclusion that, but for counsel’s claimed deficient performance in not submitting this evidence in the immigration court, the result of his removal proceedings would probably have been different

. See Diaz v. Sessions , 894 F.3 d 222, 228 (5th Cir. 2018); Wang , 569 F.3d at 53 6

– 3 7

. Ibarra

- Sanchez also seeks review of the BIA’s denial of reconsideration

. The BIA addressed his ineffective assistance claim in its decision on appeal . Further, Ibarra

- Sanchez’s bare assertions of prej udice from counsel’s errors show no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s conclusion that he failed to identify any legal error or establish that the BIA overlooked some aspect of the case when it rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in its initial decision

. See Chambers v. Mukasey , 520 F.3d 445, 448 (5th Cir. 2008) ; Singh v. Gonzales , 436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006). Case: 21-60705 Document: 00516644335 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/13/2023No. 21

- 60705

4 As to remand, Ibarra

- Sanchez contends that his proposed new evidence , including two news articles submitted for the first time with his motion , substantiate s his claims and compel s the conclusion that Jehovah’s Witnesses and non
- Spanish speaking deportees with substance addiction are subject to persecution and murder in Mexico

. However, Ibarra

- Sanchez has show n no abu se of discretion in the BIA’s conclusion that remand was not warranted because the proposed new evidence was not “ likely [ to ] change the result in the cas e
. ” S ee S uate

- Orellana v. Barr , 979 F.3d 1056, 1062 (5th Cir. 2020)

. The petition s for review are **DENIED**

. Case: 21-60705 Document: 00516644335 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/13/2023