United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60594

Summary Calendar

Amany Gonzalez Sanchez, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A201 451 703

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Amany Gonzalez Sanchez, a native and citizen of Cuba, petitions this 

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

upholding the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, 

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He argues that 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

January 3, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60594 Document: 00516150469 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2022
No. 20-60594

2

record compels the conclusion that his actual or imputed political opinion 

was at least one central reason for the harm he suffered, the harm qualified as 

persecution and was perpetrated by the Cuban government, and he 

established a well-founded fear of future persecution.

As an initial matter, we decline to sua sponte raise any issues regarding 

whether this court is a proper venue for the petition for review, in light of the 

possible “unfairness of requiring the parties to relitigate anew in a different 

forum.” Jama v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 230, 233 (5th Cir. 2005). Regarding the 

merits of Gonzalez Sanchez’s arguments, we review the BIA’s decision and 

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

influenced the BIA’s decision. Revencu v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 396, 401 (5th 

Cir. 2018), as revised (Aug. 2, 2018). The determination that an alien is not 

eligible for asylum or withholding of removal is reviewed under the 

substantial evidence standard. Id.; Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th 

Cir. 2006).

According to Gonzalez Sanchez’s testimony and written statement, a 

Cuban security official identified as Captain Tony first approached Gonzalez 

Sanchez because Captain Tony wanted him to relay information about the 

Nigerian ambassador’s conversations. Gonzalez Sanchez was singled out for 

the task because he was one of the ambassador’s two personal drivers and 

spoke better English than the other driver. Those reasons are unrelated to 

Gonzalez Sanchez’s political beliefs. See Changsheng Du v. Barr, 975 F.3d 

444, 448 (5th Cir. 2020); Revencu, 895 F.3d at 403.

Additionally, Captain Tony’s subsequent threats that Gonzalez 

Sanchez should provide the information sought to avoid future harm shows 

that the harm against Gonzalez Sanchez was contingent on his failure to 

perform the task, rather than any political opinion. Captain Tony’s 

statements indicating that Gonzalez Sanchez owed a duty to “revolution” 

Case: 20-60594 Document: 00516150469 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2022
No. 20-60594

3

and was acting like a “traitor” by refusing to cooperate, to the extent they 

could have been evidence that an actual or imputed political opinion of 

Gonzalez Sanchez was involved, were merely “incidental, tangential, 

superficial, or subordinate to” the primary motive of recruiting Gonzalez 

Sanchez to obtain information on the Nigerian ambassador. Revencu, 895 

F.3d at 404 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

While Gonzalez Sanchez also contends that certain evidence was 

ignored, mischaracterized, or overlooked, the argument is unavailing because 

the evidence as a whole does not compel a conclusion that his actual or 

imputed political opinion was or will be a central reason for the alleged harm. 

See Changsheng Du, 975 F.3d at 448; Revencu, 895 F.3d at 403-04. Because 

substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Gonzalez Sanchez 

failed to meet his burden for asylum, he has also failed to satisfy his burden 

for withholding of removal. See Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958 F.3d 402, 408 

(5th Cir. 2020). Gonzalez Sanchez does not brief any argument challenging 

the denial of relief under the CAT, and he therefore has abandoned any such 

challenge. See Singh v. Sessions, 898 F.3d 518, 521 (5th Cir. 2018).

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 20-60594 Document: 00516150469 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/03/2022