United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60763

Summary Calendar

Maria Magdalena Lopez-Temaj,

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A208 451 056

Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Smith and Elrod, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Maria Magdalena Lopez-Temaj, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

affirming without opinion the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of her 

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

January 4, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60763 Document: 00516153477 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2022
No. 20-60763

2

Convention Against Torture (CAT). Lopez-Temaj challenges the denial of

her applications for asylum and withholding of removal on the grounds that 

she failed to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future 

persecution. Because Lopez-Temaj fails to brief any challenge to the denial 

of relief under the CAT, her claim is abandoned. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 

520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008).

On petition for review, we review factual findings for substantial 

evidence and legal rulings de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 

444 (5th Cir. 2001). Factual findings will not be overturned unless the 

evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 

354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009). Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s order without 

opinion, we review only the IJ’s decision. Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 

213, 215 (5th Cir. 2003).

Lopez-Temaj contends that she experienced past persecution because 

her employer, a woman named Olga, threatened her with death or kidnapping 

if she did not leave the country. The evidence showed that Lopez-Temaj

received only one isolated threat of kidnapping or death. She admitted that 

she had never before been threatened or harmed because of her race or her 

indigenous dialect, and that she believed her family was not treated 

differently than other families in Guatemala. Further, the record contains no 

evidence demonstrating that Olga harbored animus toward Lopez-Temaj on

account of her race or her membership in the group of Guatemalans who 

speak a dialect. Thus, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that 

Olga’s threat did not amount to persecution and that Lopez-Temaj was not 

persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Morales v. Sessions, 860 

F.3d 812, 816 (5th Cir. 2017). Because Lopez-Temaj failed to demonstrate 

persecution on account of a protected ground, which is dispositive of the 

issue of past persecution, it is unnecessary to address the IJ’s decision 

whether the Guatemalan government was unwilling or unable to control the 

Case: 20-60763 Document: 00516153477 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2022
No. 20-60763

3

persecutor. See Ortiz v. Garland, 6 F.4th 685, 691 (5th Cir. 2021) (declining 

to address issue of persecution when petitioner could not independently 

prove government was unwilling or unable to control violence).

To prove a well-founded fear of future persecution, an applicant must 

demonstrate a subjective fear of persecution that is objectively reasonable.

Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1135 (5th Cir. 2006). Significantly, LopezTemaj’s family remains in Guatemala and has not experienced any 

mistreatment or harm since Lopez-Temaj left the country. See Eduard v. 

Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 193 (5th Cir. 2004). Additionally, Lopez-Temaj 

testified only that she was unfamiliar with other parts of the country but did 

not state that she would be unsafe there. To the extent that Lopez-Temaj

argues that her fear was objectively reasonable due to the pattern or practice 

of persecuting indigenous peoples in Guatemala and that she established a 

ten percent chance of future persecution, she did not present this argument 

to the BIA in her brief, and it is unexhausted. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 

132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004) (stating that asylum applicant must properly exhaust 

claims before the BIA). Thus, the IJ’s decision that Lopez-Temaj failed to 

establish a well-founded fear of future persecution is supported by substantial 

evidence. See Eduard, 379 F.3d at 189.

The IJ’s denial of Lopez-Temaj’s asylum application is supported by 

substantial evidence, and the evidence does not compel a contrary 

conclusion. See Gomez-Palacios, 560 F.3d at 358. Because Lopez-Temaj 

failed to meet the standard for asylum, she could not establish eligibility for 

withholding of removal; thus, her challenge to the IJ’s denial of her 

application for cancellation of removal fails. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1138.

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 20-60763 Document: 00516153477 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/04/2022