United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-60128

Summary Calendar

____________

Erick Benjamin Monzon-Velasquez, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A209 436 555

______________________________

Before Wiener, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Petitioner-Appellant Erick Benjamin Monzon-Velasquez, a native and 

citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the denial of asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The 

BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s determinations that Petitioner failed 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 23, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-60128 Document: 30-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2024
No. 24-60128

2

to establish membership in a cognizable particular social group (PSG) and 

that, regarding the CAT, he failed to show the requisite state action in any 

likely torture he would suffer in Guatemala.

We review the BIA’s decision, and we consider the immigration 

judge’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. See OrellanaMonson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). Monzon-Velasquez’s 

proposed PSG—individuals targeted by gang members because they were 

university students—does not exist independently of the alleged harm. It is 

thus impermissibly defined in a circular manner and is not cognizable. See 

Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 407 (5th Cir. 2021). Because PetitionerAppellant’s claims of asylum and withholding of removal were based on the 

protected ground of membership in a PSG, his failure to establish a 

cognizable PSG renders him ineligible for those forms of relief. See OrellanaMonson, 685 F.3d at 522.

To obtain protection under the CAT, an applicant must demonstrate 

that, in the proposed country of removal, he more likely than not will suffer 

torture that is inflicted or instigated by, or occurs with the consent or 

acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 228 (5th Cir. 2019). MonzonVelasquez’s testimony that the police in Guatemala did not help him after he 

reported an attack a month after it occurred is insufficient to satisfy his 

burden, as “a government’s inability to protect its citizens does not amount 

to acquiescence.” See id. at 229 (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). The substantial-evidence standard applies here, and here the 

evidence as a whole does not compel the conclusion that sufficient state 

action or acquiescence would be involved in any likely torture of MonzonVelasquez in Guatemala. See id.; Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 225-26 

(5th Cir. 2019).

Case: 24-60128 Document: 30-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2024
No. 24-60128

3

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 24-60128 Document: 30-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/23/2024