IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

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 Carlos Nicolas-Morales, who are brothers and native

citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeals from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial

of their applications for (1) asylum, (2) withholding of removal, and (3) relief

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). They also seek review of the BIA’s

denial of their motion for reconsideration. Because Erick and Carlos filed

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

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

petitions for review from both the initial BIA order and its order on

reconsideration, we have jurisdiction to review both orders. See Guevara v.

Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 2006).

We review the order of the BIA, and we will consider the underlying

decision of the IJ, only if it influenced the BIA’s determination. Mikhael v. INS,

115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). We will uphold the BIA’s factual findings if

they are supported by substantial evidence. Silwany-Rodriguez v. INS, 975 F.2d

1157, 1160 (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 IJ found that the applications were untimely, the

BIA, on reconsideration, found it unnecessary to address timeliness because

Erick and Carlos had not shown that they were eligible for asylum. We

therefore turn to the merits of their claims.

Asylum may be granted to an alien who is outside of his or her country and

is “unable or unwilling to return because of persecution or a well-founded fear

of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a

particular social group, or political opinion.” Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th

Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To establish

persecution, an “alien must establish that race, religion, nationality,

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at

least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” Shaikh v. Holder, 588

F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)

(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 central reason for the

Julupesty’s attacks on their family is supported by substantial evidence. The

evidence adduced showed that the Julupesty were interested only in extracting

2

 Case: 12-60688 Document: 00512414516 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2013
No. 12-60688

money and that they engaged in violence to further compliance with their

criminal demands. Acts motivated by a desire for financial gains do not

constitute persecution under any of the protected categories. See Shaikh, 588

F.3d at 864. Erick and Carlos assert that their family was targeted because the

Julupesty know that police will not intervene in what they believe to be

“internal” gypsy matters. In light of other evidence showing that the police do

investigate the Julupesty’s crimes, however, the evidence does not compel a

conclusion that Erick’s and Carlos’s statuses as gypsies was at least one central

reason why they were targeted. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134; Shaikh, 588 F.3d

at 864.

The IJ and BIA also rejected Erick’s and Carlos’s claims for withholding

of removal. An applicant who fails to meet the less stringent standards for

asylum is necessarily unable to meet the more stringent standards for

withholding of removal. Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658-59 (5th Cir. 2012). 

As with petitioners’ asylum claims, the evidence does not compel a conclusion

that they have established eligibility for withholding of removal. 

Finally, Erick and Carlos seek relief under the CAT. Torture is defined as

“any act by which severe pain or suffering . . . is intentionally inflicted 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 other person acting in an

official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). The BIA’s determination that an

alien is not eligible for CAT relief will be upheld unless 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 because they had

presented evidence that Mexican officials declined to get involved in “internal”

gypsy matters. However, 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: 10/21/2013
No. 12-60688

have failed to show that the evidence compels a conclusion that Mexican officials

would consent to or acquiesce 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