# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22

- 60552 Summary Calendar

**____________ Francisco Navarro Garcia; Rosa Isela De La Fuente De**  **Hoyos; Demian Francisco Navarro De La Fuente,**

Petitioners **,**

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

**.**

**______________________________** Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency Nos. A206 607 310, A206 607 311, A206 607 370

**______________________________** Before **Wiener, Elrod,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****
Petitioners Francisco Navarro Garcia, Rosa Isela De La Fuente, and Demian Francisco Navarro De La Fuente are natives and citizens of Mexico

. They petition us to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to uphold a denial of (1) asylum, ( 2) withhol ding of removal, and ( 3)

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 8, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-60552 Document: 00516850748 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023No. 22

- 60552

2 protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Navarro Garcia, as the lead petitioner, claimed persecution based on political opinion and membership in a particular social group (PSG)

. We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. See Gjetani v. Barr , 968 F.3d 393, 396 (5th Cir. 2020)

. The BIA’s factual determination s are reviewed for substantial evidence. Chen v. Gonzal es , 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). A petitioner must show that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion

. Ramirez

- Mejia v. Lynch , 794 F.3d 485, 489 (5th Cir. 2015). We do not consider issues that th e BIA deemed
to have been waived by the petitioners on appeal

. See Santos

- Alvarado v. Barr , 967 F.3d 428, 440 n.13 (5th Cir. 2020)

. The record does not compel a conclusion that the kidnappings within Navarro Garcia’s family were motivated by either political animus or his membership in a PSG. Se e Ramirez

- Mejia , 794 F.3d at 493. Economic extortion does not constitute persecution based on a protected ground. See id. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that p etitioners have not established a well

- founded fear of persecution in Mexico , given that Navarro Garcia’s siblings have remained in Mexico unharmed

. Navarro Garcia maintained his government job and stayed in Mexico unharmed for about eight months after his father’s death , and he twice returned to Mexico

un harmed

. See Gjetani , 968 F.3d at 399

. P etitioners also assert due process violations , but they fail to adequately brief the contentions : They have not adequately identif ied any arguments that the BIA fa iled to consider or why 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) would apply when there was no finding by the immigration judge or BIA that past persecution based on account of a protected ground was established. See Chambers v. Mukasey , 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008) ( recognizing that Case: 22-60552 Document: 00516850748 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2023No. 22

- 60552

3 petitioners waive issues that they do not adequately brief) . To the extent the P etitioners seek to attack the merits of the conclusion that they failed to establish a well

- founded fear of persecution, their contention is merel y cloaked in the “constitutional garb” of due process and fails for the reasons discussed above. See Hadwani v. Gonzales , 445 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted)

. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum and thus have acc ordingly failed to satisfy their burden for withholding of removal. See Gjetani , 968 F.3d at 399

- 400. Also, s ubstantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioners failed to establish the requisite likelihood of torture for protection under th e CAT for the same reasons that they have failed to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.
The petition for review is **DENIED**

. Case: 22-60552 Document: 00516850748 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/08/2023