United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60014

Summary Calendar

Mayra Jackeline Machado, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A 073-900-867

Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Mayra Jackeline Machado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

denying her request for deferral of removal under the United Nations 

Convention Against Torture (CAT). In addition to addressing the merits of 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

April 22, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60014 Document: 00515833371 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2021
No. 20-60014

2

Machado’s claims for relief, the Government moves to dismiss the petition

for lack of jurisdiction. We grant the motion, and dismiss the petition, insofar 

as Machado challenges the BIA’s discretionary decision not to assign her 

appeal of the immigration judge’s denial of CAT relief to a three-member 

panel. See Cantu-Delgadillo v. Holder, 584 F.3d 682, 691 (5th Cir. 2009). In 

all other respects, we deny the motion to dismiss. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 

140 S. Ct. 1683, 1688 (2020).

To obtain CAT relief, Machado must show that if removed to 

El Salvador, it is more likely than not that she will be tortured by, or with the 

acquiescence of, government officials acting under color of law. See 8 C.F.R 

§ 208.16(c)(2); Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1139 (5th Cir. 2006). With 

respect, at least, to the BIA’s determination that she had not shown the 

requisite government acquiescence, Machado fails to show that “the 

evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it.” I.N.S. 

v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992); see Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 

560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009). The Board chose between two reasonable 

constructions of the evidence, and its conclusion that the Salvadoran 

government, notwithstanding the efficacy of its efforts, has neither 

acquiesced to nor turned a blind eye to gang violence and sexual violence 

against women is supported by substantial evidence. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 

432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005); Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 

354 (5th Cir. 2002); 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(7). Accordingly, we conclude that 

the BIA’s denial of CAT relief was substantially reasonable. See Zhang, 432 

F.3d at 344. Because our resolution of this issue does not turn on Machado’s

credibility, we do not reach her challenge to the immigration judge’s adverse 

credibility finding.

Machado’s due process arguments are likewise unavailing. See 

Santos-Alvarado v. Barr, 967 F.3d 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2020). Even if she could 

show a due process violation—which she does not—Machado makes no 

Case: 20-60014 Document: 00515833371 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2021
No. 20-60014

3

showing that she was prejudiced, let alone substantially so, by any of the 

complained-of actions of the immigration judge, the warden of her detention 

facility, or federal immigration officials. See Arteaga-Ramirez v. Barr, 954 

F.3d 812, 813 (5th Cir. 2020).

The motion to dismiss the petition for review is GRANTED IN 

PART and DENIED IN PART, and the petition is DISMISSED IN 

PART for lack of jurisdiction. The petition for review is otherwise

DENIED. 

Case: 20-60014 Document: 00515833371 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/22/2021