Court Opinion

ID: 9383145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 18:00:36.847201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:43.874535
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60448         Document: 00516693341             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/29/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                                    FILED
                                                                                 March 29, 2023
                                       No. 22-60448
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar
                                                                                       Clerk
                                     ____________

   Evelin Beatriz Cisneros-Saravia; Roni Odir Cisneros;
   Nayely Stefany Cisneros; Karla Beatriz Cisneros,

                                                                                Petitioners,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                       Agency Nos. A209 076 568, A209 076 569,
                              A209 076 570, A209 076 571
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Evelin Beatriz Cisneros-Saravia and her three children, Roni Odir
   Cisneros, Nayely Stefany Cisneros, and Karla Beatriz Cisneros, natives and
   citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
   Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal and affirming the decision of the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60448        Document: 00516693341              Page: 2       Date Filed: 03/29/2023

                                         No. 22-60448

   Immigration Judge (IJ) denying them asylum, withholding of removal, and
   protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 1 We review the
   BIA’s legal conclusions de novo, but its factual findings for substantial
   evidence. Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786 (5th Cir. 2016);
   Chen v. Gonzalez, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). We review the decision
   of the BIA, considering the IJ’s decision only to the extent it impacted that
   of the BIA. Id. at 785.
           For purposes of review, the BIA presumed Cisneros-Saravia’s
   credibility.      The agency nonetheless determined that the record
   demonstrated that the perpetrators’ motive for their extortion demands was
   primarily criminal and financial in nature. The BIA therefore concluded that
   she failed to show the nexus between the harm and a protected category as
   required for asylum. Cisneros-Saravia’s vague contentions, unsupported by
   citation to the record, that the gang targeted her because she might “be able
   to assist them” fail to compel a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA. See
   Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 492-93 (5th Cir. 2015); Chen, 470 F.3d
   at 1134; Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 351 (5th Cir. 2002).
   Because a nexus between the harm and a protected ground is an essential
   element of an asylum claim, Cisneros-Saravia’s failure to show error in the
   BIA’s nexus determination is fatal to her asylum claim. See Vazquez-Guerra
   v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 265, 269 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228
   (2022). We therefore do not consider her remaining arguments as to asylum.
   See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
           Cisneros-Saravia challenges the agency’s denial of withholding of
   removal as well, arguing that withholding has a more relaxed nexus standard
           _____________________
           1
             Because Cisneros-Saravia is the lead petitioner and her children are riders on her
   application and derivative beneficiaries of her asylum application, we refer only to
   Cisneros-Saravia.

                                                2
Case: 22-60448      Document: 00516693341            Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/29/2023

                                      No. 22-60448

   than asylum. Under this court’s precedent, however, Cisneros-Saravia’s
   failure to meet the less stringent standard of proof required for asylum relief,
   renders her “necessarily also unable to establish an entitlement to
   withholding of removal.” Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658-59 (5th Cir.
   2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Vazquez-Guerra,
   7 F.4th at 271 (rejecting the argument that withholding has a “more relaxed
   standard” on the nexus issue).
          As to CAT relief, Cisneros-Saravia had to “establish that it is more
   likely than not that [s]he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed
   country of removal.” Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 597 (quoting
   8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)) (5th Cir. 2021). We have defined torture as “‘any
   act by which severe pain or suffering . . . is intentionally inflicted on a person’
   by or with the acquiescence of a public official for informational, punitive,
   coercive, or discriminatory purposes.” Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th at 597 (quoting
   8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1)). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
   conclusion that the single extortion demand, followed by no further demands
   or threats, was insufficient to demonstrate that it was more likely than not
   that Cisneros-Saravia would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. See
   Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th at 597; Hernandez-De La Cruz, 819 F.3d at 786.
   Cisneros-Saravia’s unsupported and speculative contentions regarding
   emotional distress and the violence in El Salvador generally are insufficient
   to compel a conclusion to the contrary. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. Her
   assertion, unsupported by record citation, that she submitted evidence of
   government corruption likewise fails to compel a conclusion of either state
   involvement or acquiescence. See Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 772
   (5th Cir. 2019); Ramirez-Mejia, 794 F.3d at 494; Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales,
   447 F.3d 343, 351 (5th Cir. 2006).
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                           3