Court Opinion

ID: 9392770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-06 00:00:50.239594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:48.659268
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60452       Document: 00516740707             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/05/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    ____________                                    FILED
                                                                                 May 5, 2023
                                     No. 22-60452
                                   Summary Calendar                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                    Clerk
                                   ____________

   Luis Manuel Acosta Marquez,

                                                                               Petitioner,

                                           versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                             Respondent.
                    ______________________________

                       Petition for Review of an Order of the
                           Board of Immigration Appeals
                             Agency No. A205 287 400
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Luis Manuel Acosta Marquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
   petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) dismissal
   of his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for
   withholding of removal. His claim is based on membership in the proposed

          _____________________
          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set
   forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-60452     Document: 00516740707           Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                    No. 22-60452

   particular social group (PSG) of Salvadoran men who have lived in the
   United States for an extended period of time and fear returning to El
   Salvador.
          When the BIA affirms the IJ without opinion, as it did here, we review
   the IJ’s decision. Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2003).
   Findings of fact, including the denial of withholding of removal, are reviewed
   under the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131,
   1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may not
   reverse a factual finding unless the evidence “compels” such a reversal—i.e.,
   the evidence must be “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could
   reach a contrary conclusion.” Id. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
   Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Whether we have
   jurisdiction to consider an issue is also reviewed de novo. Arulnanthy v.
   Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2021).
          The past harm Acosta Marquez experienced was economic extortion,
   which is not recognized in this court as persecution. See Garcia v. Holder,
   756 F.3d 885, 890 (5th Cir. 2014). As for the nexus element for future
   persecution, Acosta Marquez’s arguments on review defeat his own claim;
   instead of arguing that he would be targeted because of his PSG (the
   cognizability of which we need not reach here), he argues that gang members
   will harm him because of a personal vendetta and because they personally
   know him, which is not persecution on behalf of a protected ground. See
   Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 792-93 (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding denial of
   asylum where the applicant only demonstrated “purely personal” motives).
   Therefore, the record does not compel the conclusion that Acosta Marquez

                                             2
Case: 22-60452       Document: 00516740707             Page: 3      Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                        No. 22-60452

   established past or future persecution due to membership in his proposed
   PSG. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. 1
          Additionally, Acosta Marquez argues on review that the IJ and BIA
   erred in failing to analyze his CAT claim thus requiring remand for analysis
   in the first instance. Setting aside the fact that the record lacks any evidence
   that he actually pursued a CAT claim before the IJ, Acosta Marquez failed to
   raise before the BIA his argument that the IJ failed to adjudicate his CAT
   claim. Thus, Acosta Marquez has failed to administratively exhaust this issue
   thereby depriving us of jurisdiction to review it. See Avelar-Oliva v. Barr,
   954 F.3d 757, 766 (5th Cir. 2020); Monteon-Camargo v. Barr, 918 F.3d 423,
   429 (5th Cir. 2019).
          Accordingly, Acosta Marquez’s petition for review is DENIED in
   part and DISMISSED in part.

          _____________________
          1
           The Petitioner’s brief mentions an alleged request for asylum several times, but
   asylum was not Petitioner’s claim before the IJ, therefore asylum is not before us.

                                                  3