United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60365

Summary Calendar

Fernando Rigoberto Sierra-Alvarado; Emerson David 

Sierra-Perdomo, 

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A206 480 506

BIA No. A206 480 507

Before Barksdale, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

On behalf of himself and his minor child, Fernando Rigoberto SierraAlvarado, a citizen of Honduras, seeks review of the Board of Immigration 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 26, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60365 Document: 00516069906 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2021
No. 20-60365

2

Appeals’ (BIA) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, 

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA

concluded: Sierra failed to prove the requisite elements for asylum and 

withholding of removal; and CAT relief was not warranted because Sierra, 

fearing retaliatory gang violence after he reported his second son’s murder to 

the police, did not prove he would be tortured upon removal. Sierra contends

substantial evidence supports opposite conclusions.

In considering the BIA’s decision (and the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) 

decision, to the extent it influenced the BIA), legal conclusions are reviewed 

de novo; factual findings, for substantial evidence. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 

685 F.3d 511, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2012); Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th 

Cir. 2007) (reviewing IJ’s decision because “BIA expressly adopted and 

affirmed the IJ’s findings and holding”). Under the substantial-evidence 

standard, petitioner must demonstrate “the evidence was so compelling that 

no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it”. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. 

INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). Relief is improper “unless the evidence 

compels a contrary conclusion”. Id.

To qualify for asylum, applicant must establish, inter alia, either past 

persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution, based on one of five 

enumerated grounds in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (defining refugee). The 

“standard for obtaining withholding of removal is even higher than the 

standard for asylum”, and “the failure to establish a well-founded fear for 

asylum eligibility also forecloses eligibility for withholding of removal”. 

Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518. 

One such enumerated ground is membership in a particular and

socially distinct group, “composed of members who share a common 

immutable characteristic”. Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 

Case: 20-60365 Document: 00516069906 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2021
No. 20-60365

3

(B.I.A. 2014). Sierra fails to demonstrate his proposed group meets this 

standard. 

To obtain relief under CAT, applicant must show, inter alia, it is more 

likely than not that, if removed, he will be tortured with government 

acquiescence or involvement. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2) (prescribing 

eligibility for withholding of removal under CAT), 1208.18(a)(1) (defining 

torture as act performed with “consent or acquiescence of” public official). 

Sierra, having no contact for several years with the gang he fears, fails to 

provide any evidence the Honduran government will participate in, or turn a 

blind eye to, any torture. See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 494 (5th 

Cir. 2015) (general contentions regarding official unwillingness to investigate 

gang violence “may weigh against [the IJ’s] conclusion, [but does not] 

compel the opposite conclusion” (emphasis omitted)). 

DENIED.

Case: 20-60365 Document: 00516069906 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/26/2021