Court Opinion

ID: 9396154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 18:01:22.885504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:14.366653
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60439        Document: 00516756630             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/19/2023

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

                                     ____________                                FILED
                                                                             May 19, 2023
                                      No. 22-60439
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                             Clerk
                                    ____________

   Alba Aracely Amaya-Hernandez; Jefferson Josael Luna-
   Amaya,

                                                                                 Petitioners,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                             Agency Nos. A208 752 921,
                                     A208 752 922
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Alba Aracely Amaya-Hernandez and her minor son, both natives and
   citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a decision of the Board of
   Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the denial by the
   immigration judge of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60439       Document: 00516756630             Page: 2     Date Filed: 05/19/2023

                                       No. 22-60439

   relief under the Convention against Torture (CAT).1 We review denials of
   asylum, withholding, and CAT claims for substantial evidence.                    Chen
   v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, we may
   not disturb the BIA’s decision unless the evidence “compels” a contrary
   conclusion. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). We
   consider the IJ’s decision only insofar as it influences the BIA. Id.
          Amaya-Hernandez points to no record evidence undermining the
   agency’s conclusion that her assailants’ motive was to obtain information
   regarding murder of a state prosecutor and they thus targeted Amaya-
   Hernandez only as a means to that end, unrelated to her family membership.
   The evidence thus does not compel a conclusion contrary to the agency’s
   determination that her nuclear family membership was not “one central
   reason” for the incident. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland,
   7 F.4th 265, 271 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022); Orellana-
   Monson, 685 F.3d at 518. A nexus between the harm and a protected ground
   is an essential element of asylum and withholding claims. See Vazquez-
   Guerra, 7 F.4th at 269. We therefore do not consider Amaya-Hernandez’s
   contentions that the attack on her constituted persecution, that her assailants
   were police officers, that her particular social group is cognizable, and that
   she faces future persecution. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
          We likewise do not consider Amaya-Hernandez’s assertion that, as to
   withholding, the BIA erred by failing to shift the burden to the Government
   to show “a fundamental change in circumstances in El Salvador or that
   relocation would be reasonable.” See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. Because
   Amaya-Hernandez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily

          _____________________
          1
           Because Amaya-Hernandez’s minor son is a rider on and derivative beneficiary of
   his mother’s application for relief, we refer herein only to Amaya-Hernandez.

                                                 2
Case: 22-60439     Document: 00516756630           Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/19/2023

                                    No. 22-60439

   also cannot meet the requirements for withholding of removal. See Jaco v.
   Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 401 (5th Cir. 2021); Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518.
          As to CAT relief, Amaya-Hernandez’s conclusory and unsupported
   assertions fail to compel a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the
   question whether she more likely than not will be tortured with governmental
   acquiescence if repatriated. See Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222,
   228 (5th Cir. 2019). Because Amaya-Hernandez failed to show the requisite
   state acquiescence or involvement, the BIA did not need to address the
   likelihood of harm rising to the level of torture. See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at
   25.
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                             3