Court Opinion

ID: 9367874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 01:00:35.250034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:04.135088
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60221        Document: 00516631930             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/01/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                               FILED
                                                                         February 1, 2023
                                      No. 22-60221
                                    Summary Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
                                    ____________

   Ricardo Antonio Sanchez-Betancourt; Maria Elena
   Espinoza-Salazar; Ricardo Zaid Sanchez-Espinoza,

                                                                                 Petitioners,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A201 429 003
                              Agency No. A201 429 004
                              Agency No. A201 429 005
                     ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Ricardo Antoni Sanchez-Betancourt; his wife, Maria Elena Espinoza-
   Salazar (Espinoza-Salazar); and their son, all natives and citizens of

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60221        Document: 00516631930             Page: 2      Date Filed: 02/01/2023

                                         No. 22-60221

   Honduras, entered the United States illegally in 2018. Sanchez-Betancourt1
   seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   dismissing his appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of
   asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
   Against Torture (CAT).
           We review the BIA’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of
   fact for substantial evidence. See Monsonyem v. Garland, 36 F.4th 639, 642
   (5th Cir. 2022); Zhu v. Gonzalez, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007). We
   review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the IJ’s decision
   influenced it. See Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).
           To qualify as a refugee for purposes of asylum, Sanchez-Betancourt
   had to show (1) that he is outside of his country and is unable or unwilling to
   return to that country because of past persecution or a well-founded fear of
   future persecution and (2) that his “race, religion, nationality, membership
   in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one
   central reason for the persecution.” Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511,
   518 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks, citation, and emphasis
   omitted); see § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224
   (5th Cir. 2019). Contrary to Sanchez-Betancourt’s unsupported assertions,
   the testimony in this matter referenced only, and repeatedly, the criminal
   pecuniary goals motivating the gang members who accosted Sanchez-
   Betancourt at his home. See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 351
   (5th Cir. 2002). A reasonable factfinder thus would not be compelled to
   reach a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination of the absence of a
   nexus between the criminal extortion efforts by the gang and a protected
           _____________________
           1
            Because Sanchez-Betancourt is the lead petitioner and his wife’s and son’s claims
   for immigration relief are derivative of his claim, we refer only to Sanchez-Betancourt
   unless otherwise specified.

                                               2
Case: 22-60221      Document: 00516631930           Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/01/2023

                                     No. 22-60221

   ground under the law. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009);
   see also Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009). Because such a
   nexus is an essential element of an asylum claim, Sanchez-Betancourt’s
   failure to show error in the BIA’s nexus determination is fatal to his asylum
   claim. See Vasquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 265, 269 (5th Cir. 2021),
   cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022). We therefore do not consider his
   remaining arguments as to asylum. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25
   (1976) (per curiam).
          Sanchez-Betancourt challenges the BIA’s denial of withholding of
   removal, arguing that withholding has a more relaxed showing for nexus.
   According to Sanchez-Betancourt, the BIA therefore committed legal error
   by failing to “fully analyze” his application for withholding. See 8 U.S.C.
   § 1231(b)(3)(A). Although he acknowledges that we have held that an
   applicant who fails to meet the less stringent standard of proof required for
   asylum relief “is necessarily also unable to establish an entitlement to
   withholding of removal,” he raises the challenge to preserve it for further
   review. Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658-59 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted).
          As to the BIA’s denial of CAT relief, Sanchez-Betancourt had to
   “establish that it is more likely than not that 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). The
   uncontradicted record evidence shows that the police expressed the intention
   to investigate Sanchez-Betancourt’s report of the extortion attempts. The
   failure of the police to arrest or prosecute any individual for the offense is
   “better explained” by the fact Sanchez-Betancourt and his wife were
   unavailable to assist in the investigation because they left the area and, in any
   event, could not describe the perpetrators. See Tabora Gutierrez v. Garland,
   12 F.4th 496, 504 (5th Cir. 2021).

                                          3
Case: 22-60221      Document: 00516631930          Page: 4    Date Filed: 02/01/2023

                                    No. 22-60221

          Although the police also suggested to Sanchez-Betancourt that he
   should relocate because such cases are difficult to resolve, limited
   governmental resources and a government’s inability to provide total
   security for its citizens do not “rise to the level of state action required for
   relief under the Convention Against Torture.” Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales,
   447 F.3d 343, 351 (5th Cir. 2006); see Tabora Gutierrez, 12 F.4th at 504;
   Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 494 (5th Cir. 2015). The country
   reports noting incidents of police corruption are likewise insufficient to
   compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination that Sanchez-
   Betancourt failed to show “willful blindness” by the Honduran government.
   Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 772 (5th Cir. 2019). Substantial
   evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. See Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th
   at 597; Wang, 569 F.3d at 537.
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                          4