Court Opinion

ID: 9384378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-03 18:01:18.46963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:53.047397
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60403        Document: 00516698111             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/03/2023

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

                                                                                       FILED
                                      No. 22-60403                                   April 3, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                     Clerk

   Yessica Carolina Garcia-Manzanares; Jorge Manuel
   Pinel-Garcia; Kendra Carolina Aguilar-Garcia;
   Kenneth Fabricio Pinel-Garcia,

                                                                               Petitioners,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                             Agency Nos. A209 241 496,
                            A209 241 497, A209 241 498,
                                     A209 241 499
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Yessica Carolina Garcia-Manzanares, native and citizen of Honduras,
   petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60403        Document: 00516698111         Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/03/2023

                                     No. 22-60403

   her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denying her application for
   asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
   Against Torture (CAT). (Although Garcia filed separate applications for
   herself and each of her children, she described the children as riders on her
   application, and the BIA treated them as such. Accordingly, her petition is
   on behalf of herself and her children.)
          The BIA “affirm[ed] the [IJ’s] decision for the reasons set forth by
   the [IJ]”, as well as providing additional reasons for denying relief. In
   considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s, to the extent, as in this instance,
   it influenced the BIA), legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; factual
   findings, for substantial evidence. E.g., Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d
   511, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2012).      Under the substantial-evidence standard,
   petitioner must demonstrate “the evidence is so compelling that no
   reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion”. Chen v. Gonzales,
   470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
          Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s reasonable determination
   that Garcia was targeted for extortion for economic gain based on her
   perceived wealth, not based on her proposed particular social groups (PSG).
   E.g., Gonzalez-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019) (explaining
   membership in PSG must be “at least one central reason for persecuting the
   applicant” (citation omitted)). And the BIA did not err in continuing to
   conclude that people who resist gang recruitment do not constitute a PSG.
   E.g., Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 2016)
   (approving unpublished decision holding alien’s refusal to pay bribes did not
   make her member of PSG because one’s anti-gang values or antagonistic
   relationship with gangs does not amount to a common immutable
   characteristic).

                                              2
Case: 22-60403       Document: 00516698111          Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/03/2023

                                     No. 22-60403

          Further, as Garcia acknowledges, her contention that the nexus
   standard is lower for a withholding claim is foreclosed in this circuit. E.g.,
   Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 271 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142
   S. Ct. 1228 (2022) (“Despite [petitioner]’s argument that withholding of
   removal involves a ‘less demanding’ and ‘more relaxed’ standard than
   asylum for meeting the nexus requirement, this court has held that applicants
   for withholding of removal must similarly show that a protected ground,
   including membership in a [PSG], was or will be at least one central reason
   for persecuting the applicant.” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, the BIA did
   not err in rejecting the asylum and withholding claims. See Efe v. Ashcroft,
   293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002) (“Since [petitioner] does not meet the bar
   for asylum, he also does not meet the standard for withholding of
   deportation.”).
          Finally, because Garcia fails to show she faced a likelihood of torture
   in Honduras that would be inflicted with the consent or acquiescence of a
   public official, she fails to make the requisite showing for CAT protection.
   See Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates, 846 F.3d 806, 812 (5th Cir. 2017) (“[R]elief under
   the CAT requires a two part analysis—first, is it more likely than not that the
   alien will be tortured upon return to his homeland; and second, is there
   sufficient state action involved in that torture”. (citation omitted) (alteration
   omitted); see also Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 772–73 (5th Cir. 2019)
   (substantial evidence supported finding no government acquiescence where
   “the record contains reports of some Honduran authorities working with
   gangs, [but] those same reports indicate that the Honduran government is
   working to combat both corruption and gang violence”).
          DENIED.

                                              3