United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-60448

Summary Calendar

____________

Evelin Beatriz Cisneros-Saravia; Roni Odir Cisneros; 

Nayely Stefany Cisneros; Karla Beatriz Cisneros, 

Petitioners, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency Nos. A209 076 568, A209 076 569, 

A209 076 570, A209 076 571

______________________________

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Evelin Beatriz Cisneros-Saravia and her three children, Roni Odir 

Cisneros, Nayely Stefany Cisneros, and Karla Beatriz Cisneros, natives and 

citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a decision of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal and affirming the decision of the 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 29, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60448 Document: 00516693341 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2023
No. 22-60448

2

Immigration Judge (IJ) denying them asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1

 We review the 

BIA’s legal conclusions de novo, but its factual findings for substantial 

evidence. Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786 (5th Cir. 2016); 

Chen v. Gonzalez, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). We reviewthe decision

of the BIA, considering the IJ’s decision only to the extent it impacted that 

of the BIA. Id. at 785. 

For purposes of review, the BIA presumed Cisneros-Saravia’s 

credibility. The agency nonetheless determined that the record 

demonstrated that the perpetrators’ motive for their extortion demands was 

primarily criminal and financial in nature. The BIA therefore concluded that 

she failed to show the nexus between the harm and a protected category as 

required for asylum. Cisneros-Saravia’s vague contentions, unsupported by 

citation to the record, that the gang targeted her because she might “be able

to assist them” fail to compel a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA. See 

Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 492-93 (5th Cir. 2015); Chen, 470 F.3d 

at 1134; Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 351 (5th Cir. 2002).

Because a nexus between the harm and a protected ground is an essential 

element of an asylum claim, Cisneros-Saravia’s failure to show error in the 

BIA’s nexus determination is fatal to her asylum claim. See Vazquez-Guerra 

v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 265, 269 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 

(2022). We therefore do not consider her remaining arguments as to asylum. 

See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).

Cisneros-Saravia challenges the agency’s denial of withholding of 

removal as well, arguing that withholding has a more relaxed nexus standard 

_____________________

1 Because Cisneros-Saravia is the lead petitioner and her children are riders on her 

application and derivative beneficiaries of her asylum application, we refer only to 

Cisneros-Saravia.

Case: 22-60448 Document: 00516693341 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2023
No. 22-60448

3

than asylum. Under this court’s precedent, however, Cisneros-Saravia’s 

failure to meet the less stringent standard of proof required for asylum relief, 

renders her “necessarily also unable to establish an entitlement to 

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

2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Vazquez-Guerra, 

7 F.4th at 271 (rejecting the argument that withholding has a “more relaxed 

standard” on the nexus issue).

As to CAT relief, Cisneros-Saravia had to “establish that it is more 

likely than not that [s]he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed 

country of removal.” Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 597 (quoting 

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)) (5th Cir. 2021). We have defined torture as “‘any 

act by which severe pain or suffering . . . is intentionally inflicted on a person’

by or with the acquiescence of a public official for informational, punitive, 

coercive, or discriminatory purposes.” Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th at 597 (quoting 

8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1)). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s 

conclusion that the single extortion demand, followed by no further demands 

or threats, was insufficient to demonstrate that it was more likely than not

that Cisneros-Saravia would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. See 

Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th at 597; Hernandez-De La Cruz, 819 F.3d at 786. 

Cisneros-Saravia’s unsupported and speculative contentions regarding

emotional distress and the violence in El Salvador generally are insufficient 

to compel a conclusion to the contrary. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. Her 

assertion, unsupported by record citation, that she submitted evidence of 

government corruption likewise fails to compel a conclusion of either state 

involvement or acquiescence. See Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 772 

(5th Cir. 2019); Ramirez-Mejia, 794 F.3d at 494; Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 

447 F.3d 343, 351 (5th Cir. 2006).

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 22-60448 Document: 00516693341 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/29/2023