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

**____________**

No. 22

- 60477 Summary Calendar

**____________ Evelyn Yessenia Ordonez Rojas; Evelyn Sarahi Anariba**  **Ordonez,**

Petitioners **,**

versus

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

**.**

**______________________________**
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A2 08 764 506, A208 764 507

**______________________________**
Before **Willett, Duncan,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges :
**Per Curiam :**  *****
Evelyn Yessenia Ordonez Rojas and her minor daughter , natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We **DENY** the petition.

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 22, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-60477 Document: 00516866852 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2023No. 22

- 60477

2 We review the BIA’s decision , and we and consider the immigration judge’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions , 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). We review f actual findings for substantial
evidence , and we review legal determinations de novo. Lopez

- Gomez v. Ashcroft , 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001).
Ordonez Rojas first argues that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction to order her removed because her notice to appear failed to specify the date , time , and lo cation of her removal hearing

. Circuit precedent forecloses this argument

. Castillo

- Gutierrez v. Garland , 43 F.4th 477, 480 (5th Cir. 2022) ; Maniar v. Garland , 998 F.3d 235, 242 (5th Cir. 2021) (holding that a notice to appear “is sufficient to commence pr oceedings even if it does not include the time, date, or place of the initial hearing” ) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) )

. Accordingly, the BIA did not err in determining that jurisdiction properly vested in the immigration court.

Next, Ordonez Rojas argues that the notice to appear is defective because the charge is inconsistent with the allegations

. Specifically, she argues that she c an not be removed for attempting to enter the United States without valid entry documents when she never present ed herself for
admission to begin with

. But she did not raise this argument to the BIA. “A court may review a final order of removal only if . . . (1) the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) . Because Ordonez Rojas did not raise this issue to the BIA, it is unexhausted , and we decline to address it. See id. ; Fort Bend Cnty.
v. Davi s, 139 S. Ct. 1843, 1844 (2019) ( “A claim

- processing rule requiring parties to take certa in procedural steps in, or prior to, litigation, may be mandatory in the sense that a court must enforce the rule if timely raised.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) )

. Case: 22-60477 Document: 00516866852 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2023No. 22

- 60477

3 Ordonez Rojas next argues that she demonstrated a nexus between her
asserted harm and a protected basis under the immigration laws

. To establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal , an applicant must prove that

s he is unwilling or unable to return to her home country because of persecution
on account of her ra ce, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. See Cantarero

- Lagos v. Barr , 924 F.3d 145, 150 (5th Cir. 2019) ; Sharma v. Holder , 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). “[A]lthough a statutorily protected ground need n ot be the only reason for harm, it cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to
another reason for harm.” Cabrera v. Sessions , 890 F.3d 153, 159 (5th Cir. 2018) ( internal quotations marks and citation omitted ).
Ordonez Rojas claims tha t she “was persecuted because she, an unprotected single mother, stood up to a gang and refused to pay the amount
demanded

. ” But economic extortion is not a cognizable form of persecution under immigration law

. See Singh v. Barr , 920 F.3d 255, 259 (5th Cir . 2019)

. S ubstantial evidence therefore supports the BIA’s determination that Ordonez Rojas failed to demonstrate a nexus between any suffered harm and a protected ground. Because Ordonez Rojas has not established the requisite nexus, we need not address her arguments related to past persecution. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to th e results they reach.”).
Finally, a lthough Ordonez Rojas mentions the BIA’s denial of her
claim under the C onvention A gainst T orture , this argument is not adequately
briefed , and we deem it abandoned. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2 003)

. T he petition for review is **DENIED**

. Case: 22-60477 Document: 00516866852 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/22/2023