United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-60476

Summary Calendar

____________

Reina Maria Gamoneda-Romero, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A201 405 524

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Reina Maria Gamoneda-Romero, a native and citizen of Honduras, 

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

dismissing her appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of: asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against 

Torture (CAT). 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 6, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60476 Document: 36-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024
No. 23-60476

2

Our court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s decision 

only to the extent it influenced the BIA. E.g., Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 

224 (5th Cir. 2018). The denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 

relief are reviewed for substantial evidence. E.g., Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 

339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Under that standard, “reversal is improper unless 

we decide not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but 

[also] that the evidence compels it”. Id. (alteration and emphasis in original) 

(citation omitted). 

On Gamoneda’s asylum and withholding-of-removal claims, the BIA 

concluded she did not show the requisite nexus between her alleged 

persecution and proposed particular social group (PSG). See, e.g., Jaco v. 

Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 402 (5th Cir. 2021) (explaining “an applicant for 

asylum or withholding of removal must [show]”, inter alia, “a nexus between 

the persecution and her membership in the [PSG]”). Gamoneda’s proposed 

PSG is “single woman from Honduras with child unprotected”. She did not 

present evidence, however, compelling the conclusion that the motorcyclist 

crashed into her son and targeted her on account of her proposed PSG. See, 

e.g., Martinez-De Umana v. Garland, 82 F.4th 303, 312 (5th Cir. 2023)

(“[C]onduct that is driven by criminal . . . motives does not constitute 

persecution on account of a protected ground”. (second alteration in 

original) (citation omitted)). 

Gamoneda’s CAT-claim challenge likewise fails because she has not 

shown she will, more likely than not, be tortured with governmental 

acquiescence if repatriated. See, e.g., Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 

(5th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he United States may not remove an alien to a country 

in which the alien is more likely than not to be tortured . . . by, or with the 

acquiescence of, a public official”. (citation omitted)). Instead, she only 

provides evidence that violence by gang members against women in 

Honduras is prevalent. See Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 911 (5th Cir. 2019)

Case: 23-60476 Document: 36-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2024
No. 23-60476

3

(“Generalized country evidence tells [our court] little about the likelihood 

state actors will torture any particular person”.). 

DENIED.

Case: 23-60476 Document: 36-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/06/2024