# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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 No s . 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: 03/29/2023No. 22

- 60448

2 Immigration Judge (IJ) denying them asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 1 W e review the BIA ’ s legal conclusions de novo , but its factual findings for substantial

ev idence

. Hernandez

- De La Cruz v. Lynch , 819 F.3d 784, 78 6 (5th Cir. 2016) ; Chen v. Gonzalez , 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006)

. We review the decision of the BIA, considering the IJ ’ s decision only to the extent it impacted that of the BIA. Id. at 78 5

. For purposes of review, the BIA presumed Cisneros

- Saravia ’ s credibility. The agency nonetheless determined that the record demonstrated that the perpetrators ’ motive for the ir 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 Va z quez - Guerra v. Garland , 7 F.4th 265, 265, 269 (5th Cir. 202 1), 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 wit hholding has a more relaxed nexus standard

**_____________________**
1 Because Cisneros

- Saravia is the lead petitioner and her children are riders on her application and derivative beneficiarie s of her asylum application , we refer only to Cisneros

- Saravia

. Case: 22-60448 Document: 00516693341 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2023No. 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 entitle ment 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)). S ubstantial 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 78 6. 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

. H er assertion , unsupported by record citation, that she submitted evidence of government corruption likewis e 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