IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60093

Summary Calendar

ANA MARIA DIAZ-DE ARDON; GERMAN EMANUEL ARDON-DIAZ; 

INGRID ESTEFANIA CESTONI-DIAZ; JOSUE EZEQUIEL PINEDA-DIAZ,

Petitioners

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A202 004 416

BIA No. A202 004 417

BIA No. A202 004 418

BIA No. A202 004 419

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ana Maria Diaz-de Ardon, German Emanuel Ardon-Diaz, Ingrid 

Estefania Cestoni-Diaz, and Josue Ezequiel Pineda-Diaz, natives and citizens 

of El Salvador, seek review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) of their appeals from the denial by the Immigration Judge (IJ) 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 24, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60093 Document: 00514487357 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2018
No. 17-60093

2

of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under 

the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the decision of the BIA and

will consider the IJ’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Shaikh 

v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). We review questions of law de 

novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. Under the substantial 

evidence standard, “[t]he alien must show that the evidence was so compelling 

that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 

F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009).

To qualify for asylum, an alien must prove that he or she either has 

suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution in 

his or her native country. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b). “[T]he applicant must establish 

that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 

political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the 

applicant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Petitioners’ claim of asylum eligibility 

is predicated on their allegation that at least one central reason they suffered 

past, or would suffer future, persecution was based on their membership in a 

particular social group, namely membership in the de Ardon family.

Petitioners have not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion 

contrary to that of the BIA and the IJ on the issue whether they are entitled 

to asylum. See Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005). At a 

minimum, Petitioners failed to establish that they either were victims of past 

persecution in El Salvador or have a reasonable fear of future persecution 

should they return there. As for past persecution, Petitioners demonstrated, 

at most, three instances in which Josue and Diaz-de Ardon were approached 

by gang members and threatened with harm if Josue did not join. This is 

insufficient to establish past persecution. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 

182, 188 (5th Cir. 2004); Aguilar v. Mukasey, 294 F. App’x 147, 148 (5th Cir. 

 Case: 17-60093 Document: 00514487357 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2018
No. 17-60093

3

2008).1 As for future persecution, Petitioners point to no evidence of future 

acts that would constitute persecution beyond the cumulative effect of the 

gang’s previous threats. These previous threats do not rise to the level of past 

persecution, and Petitioners’ subjective fear of persecution does not, on its own, 

satisfy the objective-reasonableness requirement. Zhao, 404 F.3d at 307.

To qualify for withholding of removal, an alien “must demonstrate a clear 

probability of persecution upon return.” Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th 

Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As “[w]ithholding 

of removal is a higher standard than asylum,” one who fails to show 

entitlement to asylum fails to show entitlement to withholding of removal, Efe 

v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). As substantial evidence supports 

the BIA’s finding that Petitioners failed to meet their burden for asylum, they 

have also failed to demonstrate their burden for withholding of removal. Id.

Finally, to obtain relief under the CAT, “an applicant must show that it 

is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to his home 

country.” Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). There is no basis in the record to 

demonstrate that the BIA’s determination was unsupported by substantial 

evidence. Nor does the case require remand in light of our recent decision in 

Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates, 846 F.3d 806 (5th Cir. 2017). Petitioners provided no 

particularized evidence in this case of the sort offered by Iruegas-Valdez, and 

there is nothing in the record to indicate that the IJ or BIA used an incorrect 

standard to analyze Petitioners’ CAT claims given the evidence presented by 

Petitioners before the IJ.

PETITION DENIED.

 

1 Although unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 1996, are not 

precedential, they may nevertheless be persuasive. See Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 

& n.7 (5th Cir. 2006); 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 17-60093 Document: 00514487357 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2018