# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 20-60752 Summary Calendar

Raul Ernest Garcia-De Paz; Henry Eduardo Garcia-De Paz,

Petitioners ,

versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General , Respondent

.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. 206 775 129 BIA No. 206 775 156

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Raul Ernest Garcia-De Paz (Raul) and Henry Eduardo Garcia-De Paz (Henry), natives and citizens of El Sa lvador, are brothers who petition this

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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 March 22, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-60752 Document: 00516249265 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2022No. 20-60752

2 court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from the denial by an Immigration Ju dge (IJ) of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). They argue that the BIA erroneously determined that they had not estab lished (1) past persecution or a wellfounded fear of future persecution and (2) a nexus between the alleged persecution and their proposed family-b ased particular soc ial group. They do not challenge, and thus have waive d review of, the BIA’s determination that they are ineligible for CAT relief. See Thuri v. Ashcroft , 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004).

We review the BIA’s decision and will also consider the IJ’s ruling to the extent it affects the BIA’s decision. Wang v. Holder , 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). We review factual fi ndings for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo. Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates , 846 F.3d 806, 810 (5th Cir. 2017).
Under the substantial evid ence standard, reversal is improper unless this court concludes “not only that the evid ence supports a contrary conclusion,
but also that the evidence compels it.” Chen v. Gonzales , 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotat ion marks and citation omitted). Here, even if Raul and Henry could demonstrate that they experienced harm that rose to the leve l of persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution, they fail to establish that the evidence compels a finding that there was a requisite nexu s between their family membership and the persecution they allegedly suffered in the past and fear they will suffer in the future. See Sharma v. Holder , 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Substantial evidence suppo rts the BIA and IJ’s finding that Raul and Henry were not persecuted by gang members on account of their membership in the Garcia-De Paz family , but instead were targeted for economic gain and
recruitment. See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch , 794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015); Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft , 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002). Case: 20-60752 Document: 00516249265 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2022No. 20-60752

3 Without the required nexus, the pe titioners’ asylum claim fails. See Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales , 447 F.3d 343, 349-50 (5 th Cir. 2006). Because they did not establish entitlement to asylum, they cannot meet the standard for withholding of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft , 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED

. Case: 20-60752 Document: 00516249265 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2022