Court Opinion

ID: 9881512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 00:00:38.703192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:16:01.275605
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60172        Document: 00516916349             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023

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

                                      No. 23-60172                                    FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                            October 2, 2023
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Yefry Ricardo Reyes-Soriano,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A202 029 104
                     ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Yefry Ricardo Reyes-Soriano, a native and citizen of Honduras,
   petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   dismissing his appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of
   withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against
   Torture (CAT).

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60172       Document: 00516916349          Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/02/2023

                                     No. 23-60172

            This court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s decision
   only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d
   511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for
   substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Id. at
   517. The substantial evidence test “requires only that the BIA’s decision be
   supported by record evidence and be substantially reasonable.” Omagah v.
   Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2002). This court will not reverse the
   BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.
   Chen v. Gonzalez, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). “The applicant has
   the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable
   factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id.
            Reyes-Soriano argues that the BIA erred in failing to consider whether
   he was entitled to withholding of removal based on an imputed anti-gang
   political opinion. As the Government points out, the BIA declined to
   consider whether Reyes-Soriano was entitled to relief based on his imputed
   political opinion because he failed to raise this protected ground before the
   IJ. The issue is therefore not properly before this court because the BIA did
   not address it. See Santos-Alvarado v. Barr, 967 F.3d 428, 440 n.13 (5th Cir.
   2020); see also Toledo–Hernandez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 332, 334 (5th Cir.
   2008).
            The Government also argues that Reyes-Soriano has abandoned any
   challenge to the BIA’s dispositive finding regarding cognizability of his
   proposed social group by failing to adequately raise it in his counseled brief.
   See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Rather than
   address the BIA’s finding that his proposed social group was impermissibly
   circular or distinguish the precedent from this court rejecting proposed social
   groups consisting of informants or witnesses to crimes as not cognizable,
   Reyes-Soriano argues that the gang members in Honduras imputed an anti-
   gang political opinion to him after he filed a police report. As discussed, the

                                          2
Case: 23-60172      Document: 00516916349             Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/02/2023

                                       No. 23-60172

   BIA declined to consider whether Reyes-Soriano was entitled to relief based
   on his imputed political opinion because he did not raise this protected
   ground before the IJ, and the issue is thus not properly before this court.
   Because the BIA’s unchallenged cognizability finding is sufficient to dispose
   of Reyes-Soriano’s claim for withholding of removal, we deny the petition on
   that ground and need not address his other arguments related to the denial of
   such relief. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
          Reyes-Soriano also contends that the BIA erred in adopting the IJ’s
   denial of CAT relief. According to Reyes-Soriano, his credible testimony
   about being shot by suspected gang members after filing a police report, along
   with the country conditions evidence showing that Hondurans who
   cooperate with law enforcement are often targeted by gangs, establishes that
   it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Honduras.
          Reyes-Soriano’s “[g]eneralized country evidence tells us little about
   the likelihood state actors will torture any particular person,” including him.
   Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 911 (5th Cir. 2019). And to the extent that the
   Honduran government cannot protect Reyes-Soriano from the gang violence
   he fears, “a government’s inability to protect its citizens does not amount to
   acquiescence.” Id.; see Chen, 470 F.3d at 1142 (explaining that “[t]he
   government’s inability to provide ‘complete security’ to the petitioner from
   [private actors] did not rise to the level of state action” required under the
   CAT). Accordingly, the BIA reasonably found that Reyes-Soriano was not
   entitled to CAT protection because he had failed to show that it was more
   likely than not that the Honduran government would consent to or acquiesce
   in his torture. See Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 415 (5th Cir. 2006);
   see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1).
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                            3