United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-60343

Summary Calendar

____________

Napolion Adolfo Quijada-Jimenez, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A202 072 014

______________________________

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Napolion Adolfo Quijada-Jimenez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

upholding the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture. We review the BIA’s 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 15, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60343 Document: 63-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2024
No. 23-60343

2

decision and consider the immigration judge’s decision only to the extent it 

influenced the BIA. Singh v. Barr, 920 F.3d 255, 258-59 (5th Cir. 2019).

In applying for asylum and withholding of removal, Quijada-Jimenez

claimed persecution by a gang on account of the protected ground of 

membership in a particular social group. The BIA did not err in determining 

that his proposed PSG of “Witnesses of crime in El Salvador who cooperate 

with law enforcement” lacked social distinction and therefore was not 

cognizable. Whether a proposed PSG is socially distinct is evaluated based 

on the perception of the society in question as a whole, rather than the 

perception of the alleged persecutor. Garcia-Gonzalez v. Garland, 76 F.4th 

455, 462 (5th Cir. 2023). The evidence does not compel the conclusion that 

Quijada-Jimenez’s proposed group is perceived by Salvadoran society 

substantially differently than the general population who resists the gang or 

otherwise threatens the gang’s interests. See Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 

819 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 2016).

As relevant to his other proposed PSG of “Current and/or formerly 

known Bus Drivers in El Salvador,” the BIA determined that QuijadaJimenez’s fear of persecution in El Salvador was not objectively reasonable,

given his testimony that he would not work as a bus driver in El Salvador 

again. Quijada-Jimenez’s arguments about his risks of future persecution by 

the gang due to his status as a former bus driver fail to show that the evidence 

compels a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination. See Singh, 920 

F.3d at 259-60. The BIA did not err in upholding the denial of asylum and 

withholding of removal based on such a conclusion. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A); Singh, 920 F.3d at 259.

To obtain protection under the Convention Against Torture, QuijadaJimenez was required to show both that (1) he more likely than not would 

suffer torture in El Salvador and (2) sufficient state action would be involved 

Case: 23-60343 Document: 63-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2024
No. 23-60343

3

in that torture. See Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 228 (5th Cir. 

2019). We agree with the Government that Quijada-Jimenez’s current 

argument on the issue of state involvement in torture was not exhausted 

before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Even if the exhaustion 

requirement were met, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s 

determination that he failed to show the requisite state involvement in 

torture. See Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017)

(determining that generalized content of articles and reports failed to show 

that sufficient state action would be involved in any torture of the applicant

specifically); Martinez Manzanares, 925 F.3d at 229 (recognizing that the 

inability of a government to protect its citizens does not amount to 

acquiescence for purposes of the Convention Against Torture).

While Quijada-Jimenez also argues that the BIA failed to meaningfully

consider his appeal, the BIA’s decision reflects adequate reasoning and 

consideration of the relevant substantial evidence. See Ghotra v. Whitaker, 

912 F.3d 284, 290 (5th Cir. 2019). The issues decided by the BIA resolved 

Quijada-Jimenez’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 

under the Convention Against Torture, and the BIA was not required to 

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

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 23-60343 Document: 63-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/15/2024