Court Opinion

ID: 9369197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 01:00:21.963967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:13.473635
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60807        Document: 00516637861            Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/07/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                                                                      FILED
                                                                               February 7, 2023
                                       No. 21-60807                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk

   Abieser Gutierrez-Mendez,

                                                                               Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                             Respondent.

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A201 142 669

   Before Smith, Clement, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Abieser Gutierrez-Mendez—a Mexican citizen—illegally entered the
   United States eighteen years ago. Seven years ago, the Department of
   Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings against him. In
   response, Gutierrez-Mendez requested cancellation of his removal and
   sought protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Generally,
   Gutierrez-Mendez contended that his three children would suffer a hardship

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60807         Document: 00516637861        Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/07/2023

                                     No. 21-60807

   in his absence and that he’d be targeted if he returned to Mexico. Gutierrez-
   Mendez represented that deportees are preyed upon and tortured by criminal
   groups in Mexico because they are believed to be wealthy. And, those
   criminal groups act with impunity from—and even in coordination with—
   Mexican officials in carrying out their activities.
          Gutierrez-Mendez’s immigration judge disagreed. On review, the
   Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge. Specifically,
   the Board found that Gutierrez-Mendez’s children wouldn’t suffer an
   “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” in his absence. Furthermore,
   the Board held that Gutierrez-Mendez’s proposed social groups—various
   kinds of people who are deported from the United States after a long period
   of time—aren’t recognized under the law. Finally, the Board rejected
   Gutierrez-Mendez’s CAT claim on grounds that rampant crime alone isn’t
   enough to demonstrate a high likelihood that the claimant will suffer from
   state-sanctioned torture. Now, Gutierrez-Mendez argues the Board erred on
   all three counts.
          We review the Board’s factual findings—including those related to a
   cancellation of removal and CAT claims—under the substantial evidence
   standard, meaning we don’t “reverse the [Board’s] factual findings unless
   the evidence compels it.” Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir.
   2019) (quoting Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536–37 (5th Cir. 2009)).
   Considering the law, Gutierrez-Mendez’s petition for review doesn’t pass
   muster for three reasons. First, we lack jurisdiction to consider the Board of
   Immigration Appeal’s decision on hardship. Simply put, “the [Board’s]
   determination that a citizen would face exceptional and extremely unusual
   hardship is an authoritative decision” that “is beyond our review.” Castillo-
   Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022) (per curiam) (citing
   Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622 (2022)). Second, we’ve already
   rejected Gutierrez-Mendez’s proposed social groups as not cognizable under

                                           2
Case: 21-60807     Document: 00516637861           Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/07/2023

                                    No. 21-60807

   the law. Gonzalez-Soto v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 682, 684 (5th Cir. 2016) (per
   curiam) (finding “persons believed to be wealthy because they are returning
   to their home country from the United States” isn’t “a sufficiently particular
   social group to support an application for withholding of removal”).
          Finally, Gutierrez-Mendez’s CAT claim is contradicted by his own
   evidence. Gutierrez-Mendez claims that he may be tortured by private actors
   upon his return to Mexico with little to no intervention from government
   officials. In support of that argument, Gutierrez-Mendez submitted a report
   from the Department of State that discusses Mexico’s high rate of violent
   crime. But, that same report noted that Mexican officials have taken active
   steps to reduce crime. We’ve found that governmental attempts at
   betterment can undermine a CAT claim for state-sanctioned torture.
   Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 772 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam)
   (finding that “although the record contains reports of some Honduran
   authorities working with gangs,” the fact that “those same reports indicate
   that the Honduran government is working to combat both corruption and
   gang violence” weighed against the petitioner’s state-acquiescence claim).
   Here, the Board found that Gutierrez-Mendez couldn’t demonstrate that it’s
   more likely than not that he will be tortured in Mexico. On review, the
   record—including Mexico’s efforts to improve its crime rate—weighs
   against Gutierrez-Mendez’s CAT claim. So, there’s no evidence that
   compels reversal of the Board’s findings. Gonzales-Veliz, 938 F.3d at 224.
   Consequently, the petition for review is DENIED in part and
   DISMISSED in part for want of jurisdiction.

                                         3