United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 19-60828 

Summary Calendar 

Francisco Javier Gonzales, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

BIA No. A206 238 077 

Before Jones, Barksdale, and Stewart, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Francisco Javier Gonzales, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing his appeal 

from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denying his applications for: asylum; 

withholding of removal; and protection under the Convention Against 

*

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

May 12, 2021 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 19-60828 Document: 00515858569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2021
No. 19-60828 

2 

Torture (CAT). He contends: the IJ erred in finding his asylum application 

untimely; the BIA erred in denying asylum and withholding of removal based 

on failure to establish any past harm and fear of future persecution by 

Honduran criminal gangs on account of his membership in a cognizable 

particular social group; and the BIA erred in finding he failed to show the 

gangs would torture him with the acquiescence, or willful blindness, of public 

officials. 

“On petition for review, we generally examine only the BIA decision 

and not that of the IJ.” Marques v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 549, 552 (5th Cir. 2016). 

On the other hand, to the extent the IJ’s ruling affects the BIA’s decision, we 

review it. Id. at 553 (citing Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 

2007)). Decisions denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under 

CAT are reviewed for substantial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 

344 (5th Cir. 2005). Under such standard, reversal is improper unless the 

evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 

F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). 

Regarding whether the IJ erred by finding his asylum application 

untimely, the application must be filed within one year following arrival in 

the United States, unless applicant qualifies for an exception, such as having 

previously applied for asylum, or can demonstrate “changed circumstances 

which materially affect[ed] the applicant’s eligibility for asylum or 

extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application” 

within the one-year period. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D); 8 C.F.R. § 

1208.4(a)(2). The IJ found Gonzales’ application untimely because it was 

filed eight years after he arrived in the United States; the BIA adopted and 

affirmed the IJ’s decision to deny asylum because, even if it was timely filed, 

Gonzales failed to establish his qualifying for asylum. In the light of 

Gonzales’ failing to file a timely asylum application, he may only receive his 

requested relief if he qualifies for an exception. 

Case: 19-60828 Document: 00515858569 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2021
No. 19-60828 

3 

Gonzales contends criminal gangs in Honduras would target him 

because of his membership in one of several particular social groups, which 

are primarily based on his lengthy residence in the United States and the 

perception he would be wealthy because he had worked in the United States. 

Economic extortion and conduct driven by purely personal or criminal 

motives, however, do not constitute persecution on account of a protected 

ground. Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding 

economic extortion not a form of persecution under immigration law). Our 

court has repeatedly held “persons believed to be wealthy because they are 

returning to their home country from the United States do not constitute a 

sufficiently particular social group”. E.g., Gonzalez-Soto v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 

682, 684 (5th Cir. 2016) (addressing withholding of removal claim). The 

BIA’s denying asylum is consistent with our precedent and supported by 

substantial evidence. 

Gonzales’ failure to show his eligibility for asylum is also dispositive 

of his claim for withholding of removal. See Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958 

F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2020) (“Because substantial evidence supports the 

BIA’s finding . . . [defendant] failed to meet his burden for asylum, he has 

also failed to carry his [greater] burden for withholding of removal.”). 

Gonzales claims he demonstrated his eligibility for relief under CAT 

because he showed the government in Honduras is unable or unwilling to 

protect its citizens from the gangs. General evidence of widespread gang 

violence and claims of police inaction in response to criminal activity is 

insufficient to compel a conclusion that a public official would acquiesce in 

gang members’ attempts to harm Gonzales if he is removed to Honduras. See

Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 772–73 (5th Cir. 2019); Ramirez-Mejia, 

794 F.3d at 493–94. 

DENIED. 

Case: 19-60828 Document: 00515858569 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/12/2021