United States Court of Appeals

for 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 establish 

_____________________

* 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: 11/16/2023
No. 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 reviews the BIA’s decision, considering the decision of the 

immigration judge only to the extent it influenced the BIA. E.g., Singh v. 

Barr, 920 F.3d 255, 258–59 (5th Cir. 2019). The BIA’s factual determination 

that an individual is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT 

relief 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. “The 

applicant has the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that 

no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id. Questions 

of law are reviewed de novo. E.g., Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 153, 158 (5th 

Cir. 2018).

First, Hernandez contends the BIA erred in concluding 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., id.

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 concluding her past harm rose to the level of persecution. See Qorane 

v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 908–10 (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 showing 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: 11/16/2023
No. 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 concluded the evidence failed 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 underreported 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 theories to the petitioner’s concrete statement[s] made to 

the Board . . . .” (second alteration in original) (citation omitted)).) 

Nevertheless, Hernandez has not shown the record compels a contrary 

conclusion. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1137–38. Additionally, contrary to her 

contention, the 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, because 

Hernandez fails 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 objective 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: 11/16/2023
No. 23-60188

4

than not, would be tortured in El Salvador involving state action. E.g.,

Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 350–51 (5th Cir. 2006). But, her 

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