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 Salvador, 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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: 03/22/2022
No. 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 Judge (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 established (1) past persecution or a wellfounded fear of future persecution and (2) a nexus between the alleged 

persecution and their proposed family-based particular social group. They 

do not challenge, and thus have waived 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 findings for substantial evidence and legal 

questions de novo. Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates, 846 F.3d 806, 810 (5th Cir. 2017). 

Under the substantial evidence standard, reversal is improper unless this 

court concludes “not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, 

but also that the evidence compels it.” Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 

(5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Here, even if Raul and Henry could demonstrate that they 

experienced harm that rose to the level 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 nexus 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 supports 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: 03/22/2022
No. 20-60752 

3 

Without the required nexus, the petitioners’ asylum claim fails. See 

Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 349-50 (5th 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