United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60718

Summary Calendar

Jorge Manuel Garcia-Perez, also known as Jorge Garcia, 

Petitioner,

versus

Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A094 865 378

Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Petitioner Jorge Manuel Garcia-Perez, a native and citizen of 

Guatemala, petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA), dismissing his appeal of the Immigration 

Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for withholding of removal and relief 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 15, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60718 Document: 00515744799 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2021
No. 19-60718

2

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Garcia-Perez argues that he 

has faced persecution and will face future persecution because of an imputed 

political opinion opposing corruption and gangs.

We review the final decision of the BIA and also consider the IJ’s 

decision if it influenced the determination of the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 

F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). We review the BIA and IJ’s factual findings 

for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Id. at 594.

Garcia-Perez, at best, offers only conclusional assertions “of a 

generalized ‘political’ motive” for the harm he suffered. I.N.S. v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482 (1992). Instead, the record and pleadings as a 

whole instead indicate that the alleged persecutors’ motives were based on 

economic incentive. Garcia-Perez does not point to any evidence that would 

compel the conclusion that he might be persecuted “to any extent on account 

of or motivated by [his] political opinion,” imputed or otherwise. OntunezTursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002). The IJ and BIA did not 

err in ruling that Garcia-Perez was ineligible for withholding of removal. See

8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 

2012).

Garcia-Perez also contends that he is eligible for protection under the 

CAT because he will more likely than not be tortured, with the acquiescence 

of the government, if he returns to Guatemala. Although he contends that 

public officials do nothing to combat the gangs’ criminal activities, the record 

reflects that the police met with Garcia-Perez after he reported crimes and 

indicated that they would commence investigations. Outside of general 

assertions, Garcia-Perez has not demonstrated that the threats by gang 

members amount to the “extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment” 

that defines torture under the applicable law. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). 

Garcia-Perez has not shown that the evidence compels the conclusion that he 

Case: 19-60718 Document: 00515744799 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2021
No. 19-60718

3

is eligible for relief under the CAT. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518; 

Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 351 (5th Cir. 2006).

Garcia-Perez lastly contends that the BIA erred when it rejected his 

claim that the IJ conducted an unfair hearing and exhibited bias against him. 

Even if we assumed arguendo that the IJ committed errors that violated 

Garcia-Perez’s right to due process, he has not demonstrated that the 

violations affected the outcome of the proceedings. See Okpala v. Whitaker, 

908 F.3d 965, 971 (5th Cir. 2018).

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 19-60718 Document: 00515744799 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/15/2021