# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

____________ No. 23

- 60188 Summary Calendar

____________ Nancy Cristina Hernandez

- Ramos,

Petitioner ,

versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General , Respondent

.

______________________________ Petition for Review from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A209 436 978

___________________ ___________ Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : * Nancy Cristina Hernandez

- Ramos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (BIA) upholding the denial of her application for asylum ; withholding of removal ; and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). She contends the BIA erred by: concluding that, for her asylum claim, she failed to establis h

_____________________

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

. R

. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 16, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-60188 Document: 00516971251 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2023No. 23

- 60188

2 past persecution or a well

- founded fear of future persecution; failing to meaningfully consider relevant substantial evidence; and denying withholding of removal and protection under CAT.

Our court review s the BIA’s decision , consider ing the decision of the immigration judge only to the extent it influenced the BIA. E.g. , Singh v. Barr , 920 F.3d 255, 25 8

– 5 9 (5th Cir. 2019). The BIA’s factual determination that an individual is not eligible for asylum , withholding of removal , or CAT reli ef is reviewed under the substantial

- evidence standard. E.g. , Chen v. Gonzales , 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, reversal is improper unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. “T he applicant has the burden of showi ng that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion .” Id. Q uestions of law are reviewed de novo

. E.g. , Cabrera v. Sessions , 890 F.3d 153, 158 (5th Cir. 2018). First, Hernandez conten ds the BIA erred in conclu ding she did not endure past persecution or a well

- founded fear of future persecution. To be eligible for asylum, she must show either factor resulted from her membership in a particular social group : in this instance, lesbians. E.g. , i d.
at 159. Over nine months, Hernandez experienced verbal denigration, objects thrown at her home, and one instance of physical harm that resulted in bruising. Although she suffered obvious mistreatment , the evidence does not compel conclu ding her past harm rose to the level of persecution. See Qorane v. Barr , 919 F.3d 904, 90 8

– 10 (5th Cir. 2019) ( upholding BIA’s conclusion of no past persecution when applicant was verbally abused, slapped, shoved, and threatened with incarceration and death).

Absent her sho wing past persecution , Hernandez must establish the requisite well

- founded fear of future persecution by showing an objectively Case: 23-60188 Document: 00516971251 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2023No. 23

- 60188

3 reasonable , and subjective fear of , persecution

. E.g. , Cabrera , 890 F.3d at
159

– 60. Hernandez contends her fear of future persecution is objectively reasonable because a pattern or practice of persecution exists against lesbians in El Salvador

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii) (outlining avenues to establish well

- founded fear of persecution)

. The BIA co ncluded the evidence fail ed to show persecution of lesbians so systemic or pervasive in El Salvador to constitute a pattern or practice of persecution. Hernandez contends the frequency of harm to lesbians is u nderreported in El Salvador

. ( The Government responds erroneously that this contention was not exhausted for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) ( exhaustion requirement )

. See Abubaker Abushagif v. Garland , 15 F.4th 323, 333 (5th Cir. 2021) ( “[W] e only need to be able to reasonably tie the appellate th eories to the petitioner ’ s concrete statement[s] made to the Board

. . . . ” (second alteration in original) (citation omitted) ). ) Nevertheless, Hernandez has not shown t he record compels a contrary conclusion

. See Chen , 470 F.3d at 1137

– 38. Additionally, contrary to her contention , t he BIA did not require her to show lesbians were persecuted in El Salvador more than transgender individuals.

Second , regarding her contention that the BIA failed to meaningfully consider relevant evidence, the BIA’s decision reflects she “ received full and fair consideration of all circumstances ” giving rise to her claims

. Ghotra v. Whitaker , 912 F.3d 284, 290 (5th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted)

. Finally, concerning withholding of removal and CAT relief, b ecause Hernandez fail s to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, she also has not satisfied her burden for withholding of removal. See Chen , 470 F.3d at 1138 (“[T] he requirement of clear probability of persecution requires the applicant to show a higher obje ctive likelihood of persecution than that required for asylum. ”)

. And, CAT relief requires showing she , more likely Case: 23-60188 Document: 00516971251 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/16/2023No. 23

- 60188

4 than not , w ould be torture d in El Salvador involving state action. E.g. , Tamara

- Gomez v. Gonzales , 447 F.3d 343, 350

– 51 (5th Cir. 2006)

. But, h er challenge to the denial of CAT relief relies on the same failed contentions she raises regarding asylum.

DENIED

. Case: 23-60188 Document: 00516971251 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/16/2023