United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60929

Summary Calendar

Elida Hernandez-Guerrero, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A205 638 341

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Elida Hernandez-Guerrero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 

for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

dismissing her appeal from a denial by the Immigration Judge (IJ) of her 

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

February 23, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60929 Document: 00516653964 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2023
No. 21-60929

2

Convention Against Torture (CAT). She based her application on her 

kidnapping and assault by unknown individuals, which culminated in an 

extortion demand and on other extortion by gang members that she 

experienced as a business owner. Although we ordinarily review only the 

BIA’s reasoning, we may review the IJ’s decision to the extent it influences 

or is adopted by the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). 

Contrary to Hernandez-Guerrero’s challenge, the record does not 

compel a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA that she failed to establish 

the required nexus between the harm she experienced and a protected 

ground. See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 231 (5th Cir. 2019). This

record, including Hernandez-Guerrero’s own testimony, substantially 

supports the BIA’s finding that the assault and extortion were criminally 

financially motivated. See id. at 224. The lack of a nexus is dispositive of 

Hernandez-Guerrero’s asylum claim, see Vasquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 

265, 269 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022), and it is 

therefore unnecessary to address her remaining arguments as to asylum. See 

INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).

As to Hernandez-Guerrero’s challenge that the immigration court 

lacked jurisdiction because the notice to appear did not state the date and 

time of the hearing, we have expressly rejected the argument. See Garcia v. 

Garland, 28 F.4th 644, 646-48 (5th Cir. 2022).

Hernandez-Guerrero does not challenge the agency’s conclusion that 

she failed to establish entitlement to CAT relief and has thus abandoned such 

an argument. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). As 

well, we lack jurisdiction to consider Hernandez-Guerrero’s argument, 

raised for the first time before this court, that, under the withholding of 

removal standard, she must establish only that a protected ground is “a 

reason” for the persecution, rather than a “central reason” as is required for 

Case: 21-60929 Document: 00516653964 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2023
No. 21-60929

3

asylum claims. See Tibakweitira v. Wilkinson, 986 F.3d 905, 913 (5th Cir. 

2021).

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED in part and 

DISMISSED in part.

Case: 21-60929 Document: 00516653964 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/23/2023