United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60490

Summary Calendar

Jonathan Joel Mendoza-Erazo, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A206 423 019

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jonathan Joel Mendoza-Erazo, a native and citizen of Honduras, 

petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of

asylum and withholding of removal. He claims that he was persecuted, and 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

November 24, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60490 Document: 00516107012 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2021
No. 20-60490

2

feared future persecution, based on his membership in a particular social 

group defined as “imputed homosexuality.”

Generally, this court reviews the final decision of the BIA and will only 

consider the IJ’s decision where it influenced the decision of the BIA. Zhu v. 

Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). Factual findings are reviewed 

for substantial evidence and rulings of law de novo. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 

531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009); Zhu, 493 F.3d at 594. We review for substantial 

evidence the conclusion that an alien is not eligible for asylum and 

withholding of removal. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir.

2005).

To be eligible for asylum, Mendoza-Erazo must show that he is unable 

or unwilling to return to his country “because of persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of,” as relevant here, “membership 

in a particular social group.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see also 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1). “[P]ersecution is an extreme concept,” Arif v. Mukasey, 509 

F.3d 677, 680 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), 

and “does not encompass all treatment that our society regards as unfair, 

unjust, or even unlawful or unconstitutional,” Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 

590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that 

Mendoza-Erazo is ineligible for relief because he has not established the 

requisite nexus between persecution and a protected ground. See Sharma v. 

Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2009). The evidence does not establish 

that he was targeted because of his imputed sexuality, see id., or that the harm 

he suffered—an attempted assault and two threats over a five-year period—

constitute persecution, see Majd, 446 F.3d at 595. Because Mendoza-Erazo 

failed to demonstrate his entitlement to asylum, he also failed to demonstrate 

Case: 20-60490 Document: 00516107012 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2021
No. 20-60490

3

his entitlement to withholding of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 

906 (5th Cir. 2002).

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 20-60490 Document: 00516107012 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/24/2021