United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-60344

Summary Calendar

____________

Reina Isabel Lopez-Gonzalez; Belinda Yamileth 

Chavarria-Lopez; Nazario Everildo ChavarriaMorales, 

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency Nos. A209 852 633, 

A209 852 640, A216 424 632

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Reina Isabel Lopez-Gonzalez, Belinda Yamileth Chavarria-Lopez, and 

Nazario Everildo Chavarria-Morales, natives and citizens of Guatemala, 

petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 3, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60344 Document: 46-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2024
(BIA) upholding the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Our courtreviewsthe BIA’s decision and considersthe decision of the 

immigration judge (IJ) only to the extent it influenced the BIA. E.g., Singh v. 

Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Questions of law are reviewed de 

novo. E.g., Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 288 (5th Cir. 2019). Factual 

findings, including the IJ’s adverse-credibility finding against LopezGonzales, are reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard. E.g.,

Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 763–64 (5th Cir. 2020). Under that 

standard, Petitioners have “the burden of showing that the evidence is so 

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion”. 

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

Petitioners’ challenge to the adverse-credibility determination against 

Lopez-Gonzalez is unavailing. The IJ noted inconsistencies in her hearing 

testimony and credible-fear interview. Lopez-Gonzalez did not offer any 

persuasive explanations for those inconsistencies. Petitioners fail to provide

evidence compelling a contrary conclusion. See, e.g., Avelar-Oliva, 954 F.3d 

at 763–64, 767–69.

Petitioners also fail to show evidence compelling a conclusion

contrary to the BIA’s, that the cumulative past harm (physical and nonphysical) to Petitioners fell short of persecution. E.g., Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134; 

Munoz-Granados, 958 F.3d at 406–07. “Persecution is an extreme concept 

that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as 

offensive.” Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958 F.3d 402, 406 (5th Cir. 2020)

(citation omitted); see also Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109, 114 (5th 

Cir. 2006) (“[T]he alien’s harm or suffering need not be physical, but may 

take other forms, such as the deliberate imposition of severe economic 

disadvantage or the deprivation of liberty, food, housing, employment or 

Case: 23-60344 Document: 46-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2024
other essentials of life”. (citation omitted)). Despite the threats, vandalism,

and acts of intimidation Petitioners allegedly experienced, they were never 

physically harmed or confronted face-to-face before leaving Guatemala. 

Petitioners were also never certain of the alleged persecutors, and no 

evidence showed those they suspected ever harmed anyone physically, inside 

or outside of Lopez-Gonzalez’ family. 

Petitioners also fail to provide evidence compelling a conclusion 

contrary to the BIA’s, that Petitioners failed to show the government in 

Guatemala was unable or unwilling to protect them. As noted supra, LopezGonzalez and Chavarria-Morales testified that they reported some of the 

incidents to the police but conceded they did not know the identity of the 

perpetrators. “A government is not ‘unable or unwilling’ to protect against 

private violence merely because it has difficulty solving crimes or anticipating 

future acts of violence.” Bertrand v. Garland, 36 F.4th 627, 632 (5th Cir. 

2022). 

Petitioners’ contentions concerning a well-founded fear of 

persecution for asylum, a clear probability of persecution for withholding of 

removal, and protection under the CAT were not exhausted in the BIA. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (requiring exhaustion). In the light of the 

Government’s exhaustion objections, we do not consider these contentions. 

E.g., Carreon v. Garland, 71 F.4th 247, 257 & n.11 (5th Cir. 2023).

Lastly, the BIA’s decision “must reflect meaningful consideration of 

the relevant substantial evidence supporting the alien’s claims”. AbdelMasieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996). The BIA is not required, 

however, to “write an exegesis on every contention”. Ghotra, 912 F.3d at 

290 (citation omitted). The BIA’s decision in this petition is adequate to 

show full and fair consideration of Petitioners’ claims. See id.

DENIED.

Case: 23-60344 Document: 46-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/03/2024