United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-60179

____________

Merlyn Roxana Irias-Amaya; Wilmer Astul Irias-Amaya, 

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

______________________________

Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency Nos. A206 444 380, 

A206 444 381

______________________________

Before Clement, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Merlyn Roxana Irias-Amaya and Wilmer Astul Irias-Amaya, siblings 

who are natives and citizens of Honduras, timely petition this court for 

review of a BIA decision denying asylum and withholding of removal. The 

petition is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 3, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60179 Document: 00516737174 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2023
No. 22-60179

2

Standard of Review

On petition for review of a BIA decision, this court reviews factual 

findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Lopez-Gomez 

v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). The substantial evidence 

standard applies to review of decisions denying asylum and withholding of 

removal. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). “We review 

the BIA’s findings of facts under the substantial evidence standard, which 

requires that the decision of the BIA be based on the evidence presented and 

that the decision be substantially reasonable.” Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 

685 F.3d 511, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under this standard, reversal is 

improper unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. CarbajalGonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). “The petitioner has ‘the 

burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable 

factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.’” Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 

518 (quoting Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.2006)). Normally, 

this court looks only to the BIA’s decision but when the BIA adopts the IJ’s 

decision, without assigning reasons, as it did here, this court reviews the IJ’s 

decision. Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 594 (5th Cir. 2006).

Discussion

To qualify for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate “either past 

persecution or a reasonable, well-founded fear of future persecution on 

account of” race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 

group, or political opinion. Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 360 (5th Cir. 2014); 

see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Here, the IJ found that Merlyn was 

persecuted in the past, but that Wilmer was not and that neither faced harm 

on account of a protected ground. Both siblings argue that they were 

persecuted on account of a membership in a particular social group, 

Case: 22-60179 Document: 00516737174 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2023
No. 22-60179

3

specifically, their family.1 The proposed particular social group must be “at 

least one central reason” for the alleged persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 

1158(b)(1)(B)(i). The IJ found that the siblings failed to establish a nexus 

between the siblings’ claims of persecution and their membership in their 

family group.

1. Merlyn Irias Amaya’s Asylum Claim

Merlyn Irias-Amaya testified that her uncle tried to sexually abuse her 

on several occasions when she was around 11 years old. She told her 

grandmother and parents about the attempted abuse, and, as a result, she 

never saw this uncle again. Additionally, Merlyn testified that when she was 

12 or 13 years old, she was robbed by “[d]elinquents” while she was on her 

way to school. 2

Merlyn Irias-Amaya does not offer a compelling argument that her 

family was a central reason for her persecution. The IJ found that Merlyn 

failed to show why she was abused and noted that the record showed that

other family members intervened to protect her. Merlyn now argues that the 

persecution only happened because of her family relationship, and while “a 

statutorily protected ground need not be the only reason for harm, it cannot 

be incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for 

harm.” Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal 

quotations omitted). “A protected ground will likely be incidental when it is 

but a means to an ultimate, unprotected end.” Berrios-Bruno v. Garland, No. 

_____________________

1 Before the IJ, the siblings also argued that they were persecuted on account of 

their memberships in groups of “young Honduran females” and “young Honduran 

male[s].” Because they do not raise this argument on appeal, we need not consider it.

2 Merlyn offers no explanation why being robbed would entitle her to asylum.

Case: 22-60179 Document: 00516737174 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/03/2023
No. 22-60179

4

18-60276, 2021 WL 3624766, at *4 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021) (citing RamirezMejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 492 (5th Cir. 2015)).

The IJ concluded that the assault likely happened because Merlyn was

young and vulnerable and not because of any animosity her uncle held against 

the family. Merlyn offers no legitimate argument against the finding except 

for the conclusory statement that “[w]ere it not for that blood relation, [she]

would likely never have been persecuted.” This, however, is neither 

sufficient nor evidence. There is no evidence in the record that the IJ’s 

conclusion was not substantially reasonable, and, in fact, the only evidence 

available is that the threatened abuse stopped when Merlyn informed her 

parents and grandparents. Merlyn therefore fails to connect any past or future 

persecution to any protected grounds. The IJ’s conclusion was substantially 

reasonable.

2. Wilmer Irias-Amaya’s Asylum Claim

Wilmer argues that he experienced past persecution based on his 

cousin threatening to kidnap him. Wilmer fails to show why this kidnapping 

attempt was connected to the membership in his family as opposed to being

incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for harm.

Wilmer, therefore, was not subject to past persecution.

Additionally, Wilmer testified that he never saw his cousin again after 

this kidnapping attempt. The IJ found that there was no “reason to think that 

the cousin gang member who grabbed [Wilmer] and threatened him with 

kidnapping, and who lived elsewhere, would cause [Wilmer] any problems if 

he were to return from Honduras.” Wilmer fails to show any problems if he 

were to return to Honduras. Because of these reasons, the IJ’s conclusion was 

substantially reasonable.

Case: 22-60179 Document: 00516737174 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/03/2023
No. 22-60179

5

3. Withholding of Removal

The Irias-Amaya siblings’ withholding of removal claims fails because 

asylum is not established. Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658 n3, 658–59 (5th 

Cir. 2012). The siblings now argue that the standards for establishing nexus 

have been relaxed for withholding claims. This argument is foreclosed by our 

precedent. Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 271 (5th Cir. 2021).

Conclusion

The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in 

part. 3

_____________________

3 The BIA decision also denied CAT protection, but Petitioners fail to brief this

claim and it is waived. Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004).

Case: 22-60179 Document: 00516737174 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/03/2023