United States Court of Appeals

for 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) withholding 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: 08/08/2023
No. 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 determinations are reviewed for

substantial evidence. Chen v. Gonzales, 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 the 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. See 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 petitioners 

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

unharmed. See Gjetani, 968 F.3d at 399. 

Petitioners also assert due process violations, but they fail to 

adequately brief the contentions: They have not adequately identified any

arguments that the BIA failed 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: 08/08/2023
No. 22-60552

3

petitioners waive issues that they do not adequately brief). To the extent the 

Petitioners seek to attack the merits of the conclusion that they failed to 

establish a well-founded fear of persecution, their contention is merely 

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 accordingly failed to satisfy their burden for withholding of removal. See 

Gjetani, 968 F.3d at 399-400. Also, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s 

conclusion that Petitioners failed to establish the requisite likelihood of 

torture for protection under the 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