Court Opinion

ID: 9906114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 01:00:35.280299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:06.310296
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60260        Document: 00516985715             Page: 1       Date Filed: 11/30/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-60260
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                             November 30, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   Mayra Nohemy Zavala-Banegas; Carlos Antonio Dubon-
   Lobo; Carlos Josue Dubon-Zavala; Joel Antonio Dubon-
   Zavala,

                                                                               Petitioners,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                             Agency Nos. A208 276 678,
                            A208 276 679, A208 373 943,
                                     A208 373 944
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Carlos       Antonio      Dubon-Lobo,         his    wife,    Mayra         Nohemy
   Zavala-Banegas, on behalf of themselves and their minor children, Carlos

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60260      Document: 00516985715           Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/30/2023

                                     No. 23-60260

   Antonio Dubon-Lobo and Joel Antonio Dubon-Zavala, all natives and
   citizens of Honduras, petition this court for review of the decision of the
   Board of Immigration (BIA). The BIA adopted and affirmed the opinion of
   an Immigration Judge (IJ), who denied their applications for asylum,
   withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
   Torture (CAT).
          We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s decision only to
   the extent it influenced the BIA. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511,
   517 (5th Cir. 2012). Legal questions are generally reviewed de novo. Id. The
   BIA’s factual determination that an individual is not eligible for asylum,
   withholding of removal, or CAT relief is reviewed under the substantial
   evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
          To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must show, among other things
   and as relevant here, that membership in a particular social group (PSG) or
   having a particular political opinion “was or will be at least one central reason
   for persecuting the applicant.” Accord Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518
   (citation omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Withholding of
   removal requires a showing that the applicant more likely than not would be
   persecuted on account of one of those protected grounds. Jaco v. Garland,
   24 F.4th 395, 401 (5th Cir. 2021).
          To be cognizable, a PSG must comprise persons who (1) share an
   immutable characteristic, (2) are particularly defined, and (3) are socially
   distinct within the society at issue. Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 229
   (5th Cir. 2019); Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786, 787 n.1
   (5th Cir. 2016). The third element, social distinction, “is determined by the
   extent to which members of a society perceive those with the characteristic
   in question as members of a social group.” Hernandez-De La Cruz, 819 F.3d
   at 786 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The group must also

                                          2
Case: 23-60260       Document: 00516985715           Page: 3     Date Filed: 11/30/2023

                                      No. 23-60260

   “exist independently of the fact of persecution.” Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I.
   & N. Dec. 227, 236 n.11 (BIA 2014); Jaco, 24 F.4th at 407.
          Petitioners generally argue that their proposed PSG consists of
   “persons perceived by a gang or other organized criminal group as
   contravening its rules or resisting its authority,” or satisfies all three criteria.
   However, Petitioners fail to meaningfully address the IJ’s finding, adopted
   by the BIA, that their proposed PSG was not cognizable because it was
   defined by the perception of the gang rather than Honduran society, which
   would not perceive the PSG as socially distinct. Petitioners have therefore
   abandoned any challenge to the IJ’s finding that they failed to identify a
   cognizable PSG. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
          In any event, Petitioners assert that their proposed PSG is
   “recognizable and discreet, as it only includes Hondurans who directly reject
   the rule and authority of organized gangs, causing those gangs to target those
   Hondurans for persecution.” That PSG does not exist independently of the
   persecution that petitioners claim to have experienced and fear. See Jaco, 24
   F.4th at 407 (citation omitted). Furthermore, we have previously held that
   PSGs comprised of persons who are targeted by gangs because they failed to
   acquiesce to their demands, reported them to authorities, or opposed them
   in some other manner lack particularity and social distinction. See Hernandez-
   De La Cruz, 819 F.3d at 787; Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 522.
          Petitioners also argue that being perceived by the Mara 18 gang as an
   enemy based on the family’s refusal to acquiesce to the gang’s authority is a
   form of imputed political opinion, citing Alvarez Lagos v. Barr, 927 F.3d 236
   (4th Cir. 2019). As the BIA has stated, however, “only this circuit’s
   precedents (and those of the Supreme Court) bind the BIA when considering
   an appeal from an immigration judge in the Fifth Circuit.” Peters v. Ashcroft,
   383 F.3d 302, 305 n.2 (5th Cir. 2004). Regardless, this court has “rejected

                                            3
Case: 23-60260        Document: 00516985715         Page: 4    Date Filed: 11/30/2023

                                     No. 23-60260

   an applicant’s argument that [the applicant] can establish a well-founded fear
   of persecution based on [the applicant’s] political opinion defined as ‘pro
   rule-of-law, anti-corruption, and anti-gang.’” Martinez-De Umana v.
   Garland, 82 F.4th 303, 312 (5th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted).
          In light of the above, Petitioners have not shown that they were or
   would be persecuted based on a protected ground, which is dispositive of
   their asylum claims. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 522. Accordingly, we
   need not address their arguments regarding persecution and nexus. See INS
   v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). Their failure to establish eligibility
   for asylum necessarily defeats their claims of withholding of removal. See
   Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 522; Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th
   Cir. 2006).
          To obtain protection under the CAT, an applicant must show both
   that (1) he or she more likely than not would suffer torture if returned to their
   home country and (2) sufficient state action would be involved in that torture.
   Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 350-51 (5th Cir. 2006). Petitioners
   do not meaningfully challenge the BIA’s ruling that they failed to satisfy the
   required state action element, i.e., that any torture they would face would be
   by, or with the acquiescence, of Honduran officials. They have therefore
   abandoned any challenge to the denial of their CAT claims. See Soadjede,
   324 F.3d at 833.
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                          4