Court Opinion

ID: 9838963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-09 00:00:31.636041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.139943
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60340     Document: 00516888586       Page: 1     Date Filed: 09/08/2023

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

                               ____________                                   FILED
                                                                      September 8, 2023
                                No. 22-60340                             Lyle W. Cayce
                               ____________                                   Clerk

   Eufemia Martinez-De Umana; Imelda Tatiana Umana-
   Martinez; Katherine Lisbeth Umana-Martinez,

                                                                    Petitioners,

                                     versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                    Respondent.
                  ______________________________

                 Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals
                          Agency Nos. A202 072 741,
                          A202 072 761, A212 998 321
                  ______________________________

   Before Jones, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Carl E. Stewart, Circuit Judge:
         Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration
   Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision that she
   and her two daughters are ineligible for immigration relief on any ground.
   Because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s order
   denying relief to Petitioner, we DENY the petition for review.
Case: 22-60340        Document: 00516888586              Page: 2      Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                         No. 22-60340

                 I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
           In 2014, Petitioner Eufemia Martinez-De Umana, a native and citizen
   of El Salvador, attempted to enter the United States near Hidalgo, Texas,
   with her daughter Katherine. An asylum officer interviewed Martinez-De
   Umana and determined that she had a credible fear of persecution based on
   her membership in a particular social group. The Department of Homeland
   Security (“DHS”) then personally served Martinez-De Umana and
   Katherine each with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging them with
   removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), as aliens who sought
   admission without a valid entry document. In October 2014, Martinez-De
   Umana appeared with counsel before an IJ, admitted the factual allegations
   in the NTAs, and conceded that she and Katherine were removable as
   charged. She sought relief in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and
   protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Several years
   later in 2017, another one of Martinez-De Umana’s daughters, Imelda,
   attempted to enter the United States without authorization. DHS served her
   with an NTA charging her with removability under 8 U.S.C.
   § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), as an alien present in the United States without being
   admitted or paroled. Her removal proceedings were later consolidated with
   Martinez-de Umana’s and Katherine’s proceedings.
           In December 2018, Martinez-De Umana appeared before the IJ again
   and set forth her claims for immigration relief.1 She asserted that her claim
   for asylum and withholding of removal was based on her membership in
   several particular social groups, which she defined as: (1) employees of the
   Ministry of Justice, (2) former employees of the Ministry of Justice, (3)

           _____________________
           1
             Martinez-De Umana is the lead petitioner in the underlying proceedings and on
   appeal, advancing claims for immigration relief on behalf of herself and her two daughters.

                                               2
Case: 22-60340      Document: 00516888586          Page: 3    Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                    No. 22-60340

   immediate family members, and (4) whistleblowers. She testified that, from
   2012 to 2014, she worked at the Ministry of Justice, an organization that
   oversaw the prison system in El Salvador. She testified that she initially
   worked as a security officer inside the prison and received “military
   training.” Later, she began working in the prison’s administrative office. She
   testified that her job duties included monitoring the security cameras across
   “all the prisons of the country,” looking for instances of contraband, escape
   attempts, and fights among inmates. She further testified that she was
   required to wear a uniform and a ski mask covering her face to protect her
   identity from the prisoners, who viewed the prison staff as “enemies.”
          She further testified that her neighbor, who was affiliated with the
   MS-13 gang, saw her when she was on her lunch break in downtown San
   Salvador. She testified that she was wearing her uniform at the time, which
   included a badge identifying her as an employee of the Ministry of Justice.
   She claims that when her neighbor saw her, he said “[n]ow I know that you
   work at the Ministry of Justice.” Thereafter, another neighbor, who was also
   a gang member, asked her how her work was going, indicating that he also
   knew where she worked. She further claimed that various gang members
   would follow her, watch her house, and on one occasion a gang member told
   her to open the door because he wanted to speak with her. She testified that
   she believed he may have been trying to collect a “gang tax” so she told him
   she did not want to speak with him. She decided to take a two-month leave of
   absence from her job in April 2014, explaining that she thought the gangs
   would leave her alone if they believed that she no longer worked for the
   Ministry of Justice. She claims that after doing so, however, she still saw gang
   members “passing by, looking at [her] house.” Additionally, her garbage
   man, who was friendly with the gang, told her that the gangs were planning
   to visit her.

                                          3
Case: 22-60340      Document: 00516888586          Page: 4    Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                    No. 22-60340

          In May 2014, two of Martinez-De Umana’s coworkers who worked as
   guards in the prison system were killed when gang members attacked a bus in
   which they were riding. Martinez-De Umana testified that she and her
   daughter Katherine left for the United States a few days later. According to
   Martinez-De Umana, after she left El Salvador, the gangs began attacking her
   husband. The first attack occurred in June of 2014, when gang members took
   her husband from their home to a field where they beat him and asked about
   her whereabouts. She explained that the orders for the attack came from
   inside the Barrios City jail, which is where members of the MS-13 gang are
   housed. Her husband told the gang members that he had separated from
   Martinez-De Umana, expecting that they would leave him alone.
          In July 2014, her husband was attacked again while working as a
   microbus driver. Martinez-De Umana asserts that during this attack, gang
   members boarded her husband’s bus and took documents and money from
   him. They also robbed some of the passengers and told her husband that they
   were waiting for information about her whereabouts. She testified that her
   husband was attacked a third time in August of 2014. She claimed that gang
   members pulled him out of his car and shot out his car windows, threatening
   that, “[n]ext time it’s going to be you, if you don’t tell us the whereabouts of
   your wife.” She further stated that her husband was attacked a fourth time in
   January of 2015, when gang members attempted to stop the microbus he was
   driving. Although her husband continued driving, the gang members waited
   and shot him in his left arm as he passed by on his return route. After the
   fourth attack, she claims her husband briefly went into hiding. Though now,
   he lives in their home in the same neighborhood with a new partner and
   children and there have been no other attacks since 2015. Martinez-De
   Umana testified that the attacks likely stopped because the gang members
   saw him with his new family and assumed that he was no longer associated
   with her.

                                          4
Case: 22-60340      Document: 00516888586          Page: 5    Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                    No. 22-60340

          Dr. Thomas Boerman also testified on Martinez-De Umana’s behalf
   as an expert on gangs and organized criminal groups in El Salvador. He
   testified that the government of El Salvador is involved in a violent power
   struggle with the MS-13 gang and that targeting government employees is
   central to the gang’s “strategy of terror.” He explained that former
   government employees are “in a very unique and vulnerable position”
   because the government in El Salvador has no “protective mechanism” for
   former police, military, or corrections officers, yet they are known to gang
   members, who will continue to pursue them because they are likely to
   “continue to embody . . . pro rule of law values.”
          Dr. Boerman further testified that gang members in El Salvador often
   “terrorize and leverage corrections officials” in order to gain intelligence and
   obtain weapons and ammunition. He testified that the gangs also use
   corrections officers to support their illegal activities in other ways such as
   smuggling contraband into the prisons and communicating messages from
   inside the prison to gang members in the community. He further opined that
   the gangs sought to “assert control over [Martinez-De Umana] through the
   use of terror towards herself and her family so that they could then use her as
   an asset within the prison system.”
          The IJ issued an oral decision denying Martinez-De Umana’s claims
   for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection and ordered her and
   her daughters removed to El Salvador. Citing Matter of Fuentes, 19 I. & N.
   Dec. 658, 661 (BIA 1988), the IJ concluded that Martinez-De Umana’s
   proposed social group of “employees of the Ministry of Justice” lacked the
   requisite nexus to a protected statutory ground “given the inherent
   assumption of risk that is tied to a law enforcement job.” Likewise, the IJ
   determined that her second proposed social group of “former employees of
   the Ministry of Justice” also lacked nexus. The IJ further averred that there
   was no nexus between the harm she claimed to have suffered and feared in El

                                          5
Case: 22-60340      Document: 00516888586           Page: 6    Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                     No. 22-60340

   Salvador and her proposed social groups of her immediate family members
   and whistleblowers.
           Although the IJ acknowledged the expert testimony and country
   conditions evidence supporting the existence of an “ongoing power struggle
   between the gangs and the government,” it was not persuaded that Martinez-
   De Umana could not relocate and live safely in another part of El Salvador.
   Consequently, the IJ concluded that she had failed to establish a well-founded
   fear of future persecution because she had not shown that it would be
   unreasonable for her to relocate to another part of El Salvador to avoid harm.
           Because Martinez-De Umana had failed to show a well-founded fear
   of future persecution or the requisite nexus to a protected ground, the IJ
   determined that she was not eligible for asylum. It further reasoned that
   because she had failed to meet her burden of proof with respect to her asylum
   claim, she had necessarily failed to meet the higher burden of proof for
   establishing withholding of removal. Finally, the IJ explained that she was not
   entitled to CAT protection because she had failed to show that it was more
   likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to El Salvador.
           Martinez-De Umana appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. Relevant
   to her appeal before this court, she argued that the IJ erroneously applied
   Matter of Fuentes as a per se bar to relief without evaluating her “specific risk
   profile.” She emphasized that she was an “ordinary government employee”
   and, unlike the respondent in Matter of Fuentes, she did not serve as a police
   officer or in any other type of employment with an inherent assumption of
   risk.
           On May 17, 2022, the BIA issued a decision dismissing Martinez-De
   Umana’s appeal. The BIA was not persuaded by her argument that her case
   was distinguishable from Matter of Fuentes because she was an “ordinary
   government employee” who worked in an office. To the contrary, the BIA

                                          6
Case: 22-60340         Document: 00516888586              Page: 7       Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                          No. 22-60340

   emphasized that: (1) she worked in the prison system monitoring prisoners
   via video surveillance equipment; (2) she wore civilian clothing when
   commuting to work so that she would not be identified as a prison employee;
   and (3) she also wore a mask while at work to conceal her identity from
   prisoners and visitors to the prison. Based on these facts, the BIA reasoned
   that she was more than an “ordinary government employee” and that she
   was threatened in the normal course of her employment in law enforcement.
   Thus, there was no clear error in the IJ’s application of Matter of Fuentes and
   its conclusion that there was no nexus.
           The BIA also rejected Martinez-De Umana’s argument that the IJ
   erred in concluding that she did not have a well-founded fear of future
   persecution, despite Dr. Boerman’s testimony to the contrary. The BIA
   noted that the IJ has broad discretion regarding how much weight to give
   expert testimony, and the IJ’s conclusions were supported by the record.
           Because Martinez-De Umana failed to show the requisite nexus to a
   protected ground, the BIA determined that she was not eligible for asylum
   and withholding of removal.2 The BIA declined to consider her remaining
   arguments related to her eligibility for these forms of relief because the nexus
   issue was dispositive. One BIA member dissented, explaining that she would
   have remanded for the IJ to separately analyze the elements of Martinez-De
   Umana’s asylum claim. Martinez-De Umana timely petitioned this court for
   review of the BIA’s order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

           _____________________
           2
             Because Martinez-De Umana did not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT relief, the
   BIA deemed the issue waived. See Matter of P-B-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 43, 44 n.1 (BIA 2020).
   For this reason, the issue is not before this court on appeal. See Cardona-Franco v. Garland,
   35 F.4th 359, 363 (5th Cir. 2022) (noting that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider
   arguments not first raised before the BIA due to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion
   requirement).

                                                7
Case: 22-60340      Document: 00516888586          Page: 8    Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                    No. 22-60340

                          II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
          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
   517–18. 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.
   Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518.
                                III. DISCUSSION
          On appeal, Martinez-De Umana advances two primary arguments.
   First, she argues that the BIA erred in concluding that she was ineligible for
   immigration relief based on Matter of Fuentes. She maintains that the BIA’s
   application of Matter of Fuentes was too broad, rendering any government
   employee, even an office worker, ineligible for relief. Second, she argues that
   the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s decision that she had failed to show a well-
   founded fear of future persecution if she returned to El Salvador. She
   contends that the IJ disregarded substantial uncontroverted evidence,

                                          8
Case: 22-60340        Document: 00516888586              Page: 9       Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                         No. 22-60340

   including expert testimony, that supported her well-founded fear of future
   persecution in El Salvador.3 We address each of her arguments in turn.
           A. BIA’s Application of Matter of Fuentes
           Asylum may be granted to a noncitizen who is unable or unwilling to
   return to her home country because of past persecution or a well-founded
   fear of persecution on account of “race, religion, nationality, membership in
   a particular social group, or political opinion.” Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at
   518 (quoting Tamara-Gomez, 447 F.3d 343, 348 (5th Cir. 2016)). The
   applicant must establish that a statutorily protected ground was or will be at
   least one of the central reasons behind her persecution. Id. The ground does
   not have to be the only reason for harm, but it cannot be “incidental,
   tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for harm.” Shaikh v.
   Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Matter of J-B-N & S-M-,
   24 I. & N. Dec. 208, 212 (BIA 2007)). To be entitled to withholding of
   removal, the applicant must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution if

           _____________________
           3
             Martinez-De Umana also raises arguments in her brief regarding whether: (1) the
   threats she experienced rose to the level of past persecution; (2) her fear of future
   persecution is objectively reasonable, and thus well-founded; and (3) it would be reasonable
   for her to relocate within El Salvador to avoid persecution. As the Government observes,
   however, the BIA did not address these matters because it determined that Martinez-De
   Umana was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal based solely on nexus grounds.
   Consequently, these issues exceed the scope of our review on appeal, and we will not
   address them herein. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule
   courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
   unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
           Moreover, she no longer claims eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal
   based on her membership in her proposed social group consisting of “current” employees
   of the Ministry of Justice. Nor does she challenge the BIA’s conclusion that she failed to
   show the requisite nexus between the alleged harm she feared and suffered and her
   proposed social groups of immediate family members and whistleblowers. Accordingly, she
   has abandoned these issues by failing to raise them in her opening brief. See Soadjede v.
   Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (stating that issues not briefed are abandoned).

                                                9
Case: 22-60340      Document: 00516888586           Page: 10   Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                     No. 22-60340

   returned to his home country on account of the same statutory grounds that
   apply to asylum claims. Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006).
   Because withholding of removal has a higher standard than asylum, “failure
   to establish eligibility for asylum is dispositive of claims for withholding of
   removal.” Id.
          In Matter of Fuentes, the BIA considered the asylum claim of a former
   member of the national police of El Salvador. 19 I. & N. Dec. at 659. The
   applicant testified that he was attacked by guerrilla insurgents while securing
   the highways in El Salvador and standing guard at the United States embassy.
   Id. He further testified that the guerillas in his hometown knew him by name
   and threatened him personally while he was a member of the national police.
   Id. In rejecting the applicant’s asylum claim, the BIA reasoned that
   policemen “are often attacked either because they are (or are viewed as)
   extensions of the government’s military forces or simply because they are
   highly visible embodiments of the power of the state.” Id. at 661. The BIA
   compared the role of an armed policeman to “the dangers faced by military
   combatants” and concluded that the applicant had effectively assumed the
   risk of exposure to violence. Id. It explained that such dangers are “perils
   arising from the nature of their employment and domestic unrest” and were
   not on account of any protected ground. Id. It concluded that “dangers faced
   by policemen as a result of that status alone are not ones faced on account of
   race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
   political opinion.” Id. at 661.
          In Tamara-Gomez, 447 F.3d at 349, this court applied the BIA’s
   decision and reasoning as set forth in Matter of Fuentes. The asylum applicant
   in Tamara-Gomez provided mechanical support for helicopters operated by
   the Colombian National Police (“CNP”) and was at times required to
   accompany the CNP on helicopter missions to perform necessary repairs. Id.
   at 345. Although a civilian, the applicant was required to wear a CNP uniform

                                         10
Case: 22-60340     Document: 00516888586           Page: 11    Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                    No. 22-60340

   during these missions. Id. While accompanying the CNP on a mission to
   recover the bodies of several officers that had been killed by a Colombian
   guerrilla group, the applicant was spotted by the guerilla members. Id. at 345–
   46. After the mission, the applicant received numerous threatening phone
   calls, a bomb exploded near his home, and others who had participated in the
   mission were murdered. Id. at 346. Though a panel of this court determined
   that the applicant had “made a compelling case of persecution,” it
   nonetheless held that he was ineligible for asylum relief because he had failed
   to show the requisite nexus between his alleged persecution and one of the
   five statutory grounds for asylum. Id. at 348–50. The panel then expressed
   agreement with the IJ’s conclusion that the guerrilla group “targeted [the
   applicant] because they viewed him as a part of the CNP—not as a result of
   any specific or personal belief imputed to him in that role.” Id. at 349.
   Referencing Matter of Fuentes, the panel then reiterated that the dangers
   policemen face due to their status as officers “are not ones faced on account
   of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or
   political opinion.” Id. (quoting 19 I. & N. Dec. at 661).
          In this case, Martinez-De Umana argues that the BIA’s interpretation
   of Matter of Fuentes imposes a per se rule rendering any government
   employee ineligible for relief, without regard to whether they are “highly
   visible embodiments” of state power. She further contends that Matter of
   Fuentes was intended to address the limited situation of persecution arising
   from police duties and military operations and does not apply to office
   workers like herself. We are unpersuaded by her arguments.
          According to Martinez-De Umana, she has provided evidence that
   she is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on two grounds—
   her fear of persecution based on (1) her membership in a proposed social
   group of former employees of the Ministry of Justice and (2) and the anti-
   gang political opinion imputed to her by the MS-13 gang as a former

                                          11
Case: 22-60340    Document: 00516888586           Page: 12   Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                   No. 22-60340

   government employee. As for her argument that she has a fear of persecution
   on account of her status as a former employee of the Ministry of Justice, she
   misses the mark. Although she emphasizes the fact that she was an office
   worker and therefore not a “highly visible embodiment” of the state, her
   argument misconstrues the BIA’s analysis in Matter of Fuentes. There, as
   mentioned, the BIA stated that “[a]s policemen around the world have
   found, they are often attacked either because they are (or are viewed as)
   extensions of the government’s military forces or simply because they are
   highly visible embodiments of the power of the state.” Matter of Fuentes, 19
   I. & N. Dec. at 661. Although Martinez-De Umana claims that she was just
   an “office worker,” as the IJ and the BIA observed, she worked “under the
   general administration of the penal system” where “her duties included
   monitoring prisoners and visitors via video surveillance equipment.” The
   record also reflects that she received military training involving the use of
   weapons when she began working as a security officer inside the prison before
   her job duties changed to conducting surveillance. Then, when she began
   working in surveillance, her duties required her to monitor the prison for
   instances of contraband, escape attempts, and fights among inmates. She
   further testified that she was required to wear a uniform and a ski mask
   covering her face to protect her identity from the prisoners, who viewed the
   prison staff as “enemies.” Additionally, though she frequently dressed in
   civilian clothes when travelling to and from work to hide her identity, the
   record reveals that a gang member spotted her in uniform on her lunchbreak
   in downtown San Salvador and thereafter presumably revealed to other gang
   members that she worked for the Ministry of Justice. This was no regular
   office job.
          In sum, we disagree with Martinez-De Umana’s characterization that
   she was just an “ordinary government employee” who worked in an office
   and therefore should be exempted from the application of Matter of Fuentes.

                                        12
Case: 22-60340        Document: 00516888586               Page: 13       Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                          No. 22-60340

   Although she may have routinely attempted to conceal her identity, her
   employment for the Ministry of Justice was nonetheless discovered by the
   gangs when she wore her uniform outside of the prison. Thereafter, her
   employment with the Ministry of Justice was well known, which presumably
   led the gangs to view her as a “visible embodiment of the state” as well as an
   “extension[] of the government’s military forces.” As the BIA stated in
   Matter of Fuentes, “the dangers the police face are no more related to their
   personal characteristics or political beliefs than are the dangers faced by
   military combatants. Such dangers are perils arising from the nature of their
   employment and domestic unrest rather than ‘on account of’ immutable
   characteristics or beliefs within the scope of [the statute].” Id. And as we
   echoed the BIA’s position in Tamara-Gomez, the “[d]angers faced by
   policemen as a result of that status alone are not ones faced on account of
   race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political
   opinion.” 447 F.3d at 349 (quoting Matter of Fuentes, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 661).4
   Accordingly, we agree with the BIA that Martinez-De Umana was more than
   an “ordinary government employee” and that she had been threatened in the
   “normal course of her employment in law enforcement,” and not on account
   of a protected statutory ground.
           We also reject Martinez-De Umana’s argument that she fears
   persecution on account of the anti-gang political opinion imputed to her by
           _____________________
           4
             The same reasoning undermines Martinez-De Umana’s argument that she faced
   persecution on account of her former employment with the Ministry of Justice because
   such status is an “immutable characteristic.” See Matter of Fuentes, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 662
   (holding that although the applicant’s status as a former member of the national police was
   an “immutable characteristic,” he had nevertheless failed to “adequately demonstrate[] a
   well-founded fear of ‘persecution’ on account of his status as a former policeman” because
   the record indicated that he had been subjected to “danger[s] that one with ties to a
   participant in a violent struggle might expect if he ventures into an area of open conflict”).

                                                13
Case: 22-60340     Document: 00516888586           Page: 14    Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                    No. 22-60340

   the MS-13 gang as a former government employee. As an initial matter, this
   court has already rejected an applicant’s argument that she can establish a
   well-founded fear of persecution based on her political opinion defined as
   “pro rule-of-law, anti-corruption, and anti-gang.” See Cabrera v. Sessions,
   890 F.3d 153, 161 (5th Cir. 2018); see also Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 521–
   22 (holding that “Salvadoran males, between the ages of 8 and 15,” recruited
   by gangs but who refused to join, did not constitute a particular social group).
          Moreover, the record reflects that the primary reason the gang
   members targeted Martinez-De Umana was to exploit her work-related
   access and knowledge from her employment with the Ministry of Justice in
   order to further their criminal enterprise. The evidence further indicates that
   Martinez-De Umana’s statements to the asylum officer during her credible
   fear interview reflected her recognition that prison employees like herself
   were being targeted by the gangs to “put pressure on the government” in El
   Salvador and to obtain special privileges for gang members who were
   imprisoned. She also stated that she believed that she would be targeted by
   gangs if she returned to the country because she had information about the
   prison security system, including the location of the cameras used to monitor
   inmates. But as this court has held, “[c]onduct that is driven by criminal . . .
   motives does not constitute persecution” on account of a protected ground.
   See Vasquez-De Lopez v. Lynch, 620 F. App’x 293, 295 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing
   Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 792–93 (5th Cir. 2004)); see also Garcia v.
   Holder, 756 F.3d 885, 890 (5th Cir. 2014) (explaining that “[t]his court does
   not recognize economic extortion” as persecution based on a protected
   ground).
          For these reasons, we hold that substantial evidence supports the
   BIA’s conclusion that Martinez-De Umana is ineligible for immigration relief
   in the form of asylum because has failed to show the requisite nexus between
   the harm she claims she suffered and feared in El Salvador and a protected

                                         14
Case: 22-60340       Document: 00516888586             Page: 15      Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                        No. 22-60340

   statutory ground. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 517.5 Furthermore,
   because she has failed to establish that she is eligible for asylum, she
   necessarily fails to meet the higher burden required to establish eligibility for
   withholding of removal. See Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 271 (5th
   Cir. 2021) (“The standard for obtaining withholding of removal is even
   higher than the standard for asylum, requiring a showing that it is more likely
   than not that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened by persecution
   on one of the protected grounds. . . . Accordingly, the failure to establish a
   well-founded fear for asylum eligibility also forecloses eligibility for
   withholding of removal.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
           B. Future Persecution
           Martinez-De Umana next argues that the BIA erred in affirming the
   IJ’s conclusion that she had failed to show a well-founded fear of future
   persecution if she returned to El Salvador. She maintains that the IJ
   disregarded extensive evidence supporting her well-founded fear of
   persecution, including the expert testimony of Dr. Boerman and other
   documentary evidence. We disagree.
           Where the IJ finds an expert witness to be credible, “it does not follow
   that the [IJ] must accept all the testimony and opinions provided as facts.”
   Matter of M-A-M-Z-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 173, 177 (BIA 2020). Our review of the
           _____________________
           5
             Because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination
   that Martinez-De Umana is ineligible for asylum relief because she has failed to show the
   requisite nexus between her alleged persecution and a protected ground, we need not
   address her argument pertaining to the BIA’s dissenting board member’s position that she
   would have remanded for the IJ to separately analyze the elements of Martinez-De
   Umana’s asylum claim. See Matter of J-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 161, 170 (BIA 2013) (declining
   to address the respondent’s remaining contentions after deciding the dispositive issue in
   the appeal) (citing INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts
   and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
   unnecessary to the results they reach.”)).

                                              15
Case: 22-60340     Document: 00516888586           Page: 16    Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                    No. 22-60340

   record indicates that the IJ carefully considered all of the evidence presented,
   including Dr. Boerman’s testimony. Indeed, the IJ summarized Dr.
   Boerman’s testimony, including his opinion that Martinez-De Umana was at
   “high risk” of being persecuted in El Salvador because gangs perceive former
   employees of the government as having “a pro-government view.” The IJ
   also cited Dr. Boerman’s written declaration, noting that it had “been
   entered into the record.” Because the record confirms that the IJ expressly
   considered Dr. Boerman’s expert testimony, we reject Martinez-De
   Umana’s argument that it erroneously substituted “conjecture” or
   “unsupported speculation” for evidence in making factual findings.
          Accordingly, we hold that the BIA did not err in rejecting Martinez-
   De Umana’s argument on this issue given its reasoning that the IJ considered
   “the entirety of the evidence of record,” which included Dr. Boerman’s
   testimony. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 517; see also Matter of M-A-M-Z-,
   28 I. & N. Dec. at 177 (“Expert witness testimony is evidence, but only an
   [IJ] makes factual findings. The question of what probative value or weight
   to give to expert evidence is a determination for the [IJ] to make as the fact
   finder.”).
                               IV. CONCLUSION
          For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.

                                          16