### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-60688 Summary Calendar

ERICK NICOLAS-MORALES; CARLOS NICOLAS-MORALES,
Petitioners

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A087 487 331 BIA No. A087 487 332

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Petitioners Erick and Carlo s Nic o l a s - M o r al e s , wh o are brothers a nd native citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a decision of the Board of I mmigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeals from the Immigration J udge’s (IJ) denial of their applications for (1) asylum, (2) withholdi n g of removal, and (3) relief under the C onvention Against Torture (CAT). They also seek review of the BIA’s denial of their motion for recons i d e ration. Because Erick and C arlos filed U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 21, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-60688 Document: 00512414516 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2013No. 12-60688

petitions for review f rom both the initial B IA o rder and i t s order on reconsideration, we have jurisdiction to review both orders. See Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 2006). We r e v i e w t he o rder o f the BIA, and we will consider the underlying decision of the IJ, o nly if it influenced the B IA’s determination. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). We will uphold the B IA’s factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. Silwany-Rodriguez v. INS , 975 F.2d 1157, 1 160 (5th Cir. 1992). Applicants must show that the record evidence is “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Chen v. Gonzales , 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). As an initial matter, we do not address the timeliness of the asylum applications. Although the I J found that the applications were u n t imely, the BIA, on reconsideration, found it unnecessary to address timeliness because Erick and Carlos had not s hown that they wer e e l i gible f or asylum. We therefore turn to the merits of their claims. Asylum may be granted to an al ien who is outside of his or her country and is “unable or unwilling to return because of persecution or a well-founded fe a r of pe r s e c u tion on account o f race, r e ligion, n ationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” J ukic v . I NS , 40 F.3d 747, 7 49 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotati o n marks and citation omitted). T o establish
p ersecution, an “alien must e stablish that race, religion, nationality , membership in a p ar t i c u l ar social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” Sh a ikh v. Holder , 588 F.3d 8 61, 864 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations o mitted) (emphasis in original). We conclude that the BIA’s determination that Erick and Carlos failed to demonstrate that their status as gypsies was at least one c entral reason for the J u l u p e sty’s a ttacks on their family is supported by substantial evidence. The evidence adduced s howed that the Julupesty were interested only in extracting
2 Case: 12-60688 Document: 00512414516 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2013No. 12-60688

money and t h a t t hey engaged in violence t o f urther compliance w ith their criminal demands. Acts motivated by a desire for financia l g a i ns do not constitute persecution u nder any of the protected categories. See Shaikh , 588 F.3d at 864. Erick and C arlos assert that their family was targeted because the Julupesty know that police will not intervene in what they belie v e t o be “internal” gypsy matters. In light of other evidence showing that the police do i n v e s tigate the Julupesty’s crimes, however, the evidence does not c ompel a conclusion that Erick’s and C arlos’s statuses as gypsies was at least one central reason why they were targeted. See Chen , 470 F.3d at 1 134; Shaikh, 588 F.3d at 864. The IJ and B IA also rejected Erick’s and Carlos’s claims for withholding of removal. An applicant w h o f a i l s to meet the less stringent standards for asylum is necessarily unable to meet t he more stringent standards for withholding of r e m o v a l

. Dayo v. Holder , 6 87 F.3d 653, 658-59 ( 5th Cir. 2012). As with p etitioners’ a sylum c l a i m s, the evidence does not compel a c o nclusion that they have established eligibility for withholding of removal. Finally, Erick and Carlos seek relief under the CAT. T orture is defined as “any act by which s evere pain or suffering

. . . is intent i o n a l l y i nf licted on a person . . . when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or o ther p e rson acting in an official c apacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). The BIA’s det e r m i n a t ion that an alien is not eligible for CAT relief will be upheld u nless a “reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. Erick and Carlos argue that the BIA erred in ruling that there had been no showing that the Mexican government would acquiesce in torture b ecause t hey had presented evidence that Mexican officials declined t o get involved in “internal” gypsy matters. H owever, the record also shows that Mexican officials have issued arrest warrants and pursued Julupesty perpetrators. Erick and Carlos

3 Case: 12-60688 Document: 00512414516 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/21/2013No. 12-60688

have failed to show that the evidence compels a conclusion that Mexican officials would consent to or a cquiesce in acts of torture by the Julupesty. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. The petitions for review are DENIED.

4 Case: 12-60688 Document: 00512414516 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/21/2013