United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 22-60092 

Summary Calendar 

Gresia Ivet Rodriguez-Cruz; Jensy Anabella SanchezRodriguez; Josselin Daniela Pineda-Rodriguez, 

Petitioners, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

Agency No. A212 986 758 

A212 986 759 

A212 986 760 

Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Gresia Ivet Rodriguez-Cruz, a native and citizen of Honduras, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing 

*

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

October 3, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-60092 Document: 00516493466 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2022
No. 22-60092 

2 

her appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her 

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

Convention Against Torture (CAT). (Her two minor children seek asylum 

as derivative beneficiaries of Rodriquez.) She asserts the BIA erred because 

she established: past persecution; a well-founded fear of future persecution; 

and a nexus between the harm alleged and a protected ground. (Rodriguez 

does not contest the denial of CAT relief.) 

Rodriguez’ contentions concerning the IJ’s future-persecution 

determination are unexhausted; therefore, our court lacks jurisdiction to 

consider them. E.g., Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 359–60 (5th 

Cir. 2022) (explaining petitioner must administratively exhaust claims by 

presenting them to BIA); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (judicial review of orders of 

removal). 

In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s, to the extent it 

influenced the BIA), legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; factual findings, 

for substantial evidence. E.g., Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–

18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under the substantial-evidence standard, petitioner must 

demonstrate “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder 

could reach a contrary conclusion”. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 

(5th Cir. 2006). 

Rodriguez fails to show the evidence compels a conclusion that she 

showed past persecution. E.g., Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187 (5th Cir. 

2004) (applying substantial-evidence standard to question whether IJ erred 

by finding no past persecution). Although past persecution does not require 

physical harm, it must amount to extreme conduct. E.g., Gjetani v. Barr, 968 

F.3d 393, 395 (5th Cir. 2020) (noting asylum requires petitioner to 

demonstrate “systematic, sustained pattern of assaults or other acts of 

oppression—not individual or even a handful of assaults or threats”). 

Case: 22-60092 Document: 00516493466 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2022
No. 22-60092 

3 

Rodriguez alleged she experienced harassment, threats, and requests for 

sexual favors, but this does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s. 

Id. at 398–99. 

Because past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution 

is an essential element of claims for asylum and withholding, Rodriguez has 

not met the substantial-evidence standard for these claims. E.g., Majd v. 

Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, our court need not 

consider her nexus assertions. E.g., INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 

(1976) (stating “[a]s a general rule courts and agencies are not required to 

make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 

they reach”). 

DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 

Case: 22-60092 Document: 00516493466 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/03/2022