* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60724

Summary Calendar

IRMA GARCIA-GARCIA; MIRIAN SUYAPA GARCIA; KARYME GABRIELA

ALBERTY-GARCIA; IRMA ROSIBEL ALBERTY-GARCIA; PAULA KARINA

BONILLA-GARCIA; CARLOS EDUARDO LAMBUR-BONILLA; SINDY

BONILLA-GARCIA,

Petitioners,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, US ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA Nos. A98 599 195

A98 591 279

A98 598 050

A98 598 051

A98 591 278

A98 598 048

A98 599 194 

Before KING, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60724

2

Irma Garcia-Garcia (Irma), her adult daughters, Sindy Bonilla-Garcia

(Sindy), Mirian Suyapa-Garcia (Mirian), and Paula Karina Bonilla-Garcia

(Paula), and her juvenile grandchildren, Carlos Eduardo Lambur-Garcia

(Carlos), Karyme Gabriela Alberty-Garcia (Karyme), and Irma Rosabel

Alberty-Garcia (Rosabel) (collectively, the petitioners), all natives and citizens

of Honduras, seek review of an order ofthe Board of Immigrations Appeals (BIA)

denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under

the Convention Against Torture (CAT). They also move for an order compelling

the Government to supplement the administrative record with certain videos.

This court reviews the order of the BIA and will consider the underlying

decision of the immigration judge (IJ) only if it influenced the BIA’s

determination. Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 348 (5th Cir. 2002).

Because the BIA here affirmed the decision ofthe IJ withoutfurther opinion,the

IJ’s decision is the final agency determination for judicial review and will be

considered. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir. 2003).

The petitioners challenge only the agency’s denial of asylum. The

petitioners do not address the denial of withholding of removal or the denial of

relief under the CAT. Accordingly, they have waived those issues. See

Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir. 1993).

The Attorney General may grant asylum to aliens who qualify as refugees.

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b). A refugee is a person who is outside of his or her country and

is “unable or unwilling to return ‘because of persecution or a well-founded fear

of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a

particular social group, or political opinion.’” Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th

Cir. 1994) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). The alien must prove some nexus

between the persecution and one of the five enumerated grounds. See INS v.

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482 (1992). The term “persecution” requires a

showing by the alien that“harm or suffering will be inflicted upon [him] in order

to punish [him] for possessing a belief or characteristic a persecutor sought to
No. 07-60724

3

overcome.” Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994) (quotation marks

omitted). The persecution must be inflicted under government sanction,

including persecution by groups “the government is unable or unwilling to

control.” See Adebisi v. INS, 952 F.2d 910, 914 (5th Cir. 1992) (quotation marks

omitted).

The petitioners make several arguments that attack the IJ’s determination

that they failed to establish that the harm they fear from the Honduran gang

known as Mara 18 would be on account of a statutorily protected ground. They

contend in this regard that the IJ erred by dismissing as speculative evidence of

persecutorial nexus,thatthe IJ misinterpreted the nexus requirement, and that

the IJ erred in failing to determine whether Hondurans who investigate the facts

of serious crimes attributable to gang members constitute a particular social

group. It is unnecessary for the court to consider these arguments because, as

discussed below, we have determined that the IJ’s determination that the

petitioners did not establish that they feared persecution by government

authorities or by a group that the government is unable or unwilling to control

is supported by substantial evidence. 

The petitioners contend that the IJ erred in applying the standard set

forth in Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2005). This court,

however, applies an indistinguishable standard. See Shehu v. Gonzales, 443

F.3d 435, 437 (5th Cir. 2006) (requiring that the asylum applicant provide proof

that the government “condoned [harassment or violence] or at least

demonstrated a complete helplessness to protect the victims” (quotation marks

omitted)). The petitioners have not shown that the IJ erred.

The petitioners also contend that the IJ erred, based on the evidence of

record, in determining that the Honduran government was not unwilling or

unable to protect them. The petitioners assert in their opening brief that there

was police inaction concerning the killings of Mirian’s husband, Alex, and

Paula’s husband, Dago. However, there was credible testimony that the police
No. 07-60724

4

investigated these deaths. As the IJ observed, the petitioners did not report to

police authorities their receipt of a threatening note; yet, documentary evidence

considered by the IJ shows thatthe Honduran police have arrested a substantial

number of gang members and have taken other steps to combat gang activity.

The IJ also took note of the State Department’s country report, which indicates

that a significant percentage of Honduran prisoners are gang members. Because

the IJ’s determination that the petitioners failed to establish that governmental

authorities in Honduras were unwilling or unable to control the activity of the

gang members is supported by substantial evidence, this court will not disturb

the agency’s findings. See Castillo-Rodriguez v. INS, 929 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir.

1991).

The petition for review is DENIED. The petitioners’ motion to compel

supplementation of the administrative record is also DENIED.