Court Opinion

ID: 9370833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 19:00:35.944873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:24.060104
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60339        Document: 00516645636             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/14/2023

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

                                      No. 22-60339
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                              February 14, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
   Joselyn Esther Peres-Ramirez,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A220 670 660
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Joselyn Esther Peres-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Venezuela,
   petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing
   her appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her
   application for asylum, 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: 22-60339        Document: 00516645636        Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/14/2023

                                    No. 22-60339

          Peres contends the BIA erred in ruling she failed: to show, for
   purposes of past persecution, the requisite nexus between the harm she
   suffered and feared in Venezuela and her political opinion; and to show a
   well-founded fear of future persecution. (She does not challenge the BIA’s
   denying withholding of removal or CAT relief. E.g., Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324
   F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (stating issues not briefed are abandoned).)
          We examine “the BIA’s decision and only consider the IJ’s decision
   to the extent that it influenced the BIA”. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863
   (5th Cir. 2009). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence; legal
   conclusions, de novo. E.g., Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th
   Cir. 2001).        The substantial-evidence standard applies to factual
   determinations that an alien is ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal,
   and CAT protection. E.g., Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir.
   2005). Under that standard, our court will uphold the BIA’s decision unless
   petitioner shows “the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable
   factfinder could conclude against it”. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536–37
   (5th Cir. 2009).
          To qualify for asylum, an alien must prove she is “unable or unwilling
   to return to the country of [her] nationality because of persecution or a well-
   founded fear of persecution on account of” one of five enumerated grounds.
   Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 360 (5th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). In this
   context, “on account of” means the protected ground “was or will be at least
   one central reason” for the persecution. Id. (citation omitted). Along that
   line, “although a statutorily protected ground need not be the only reason for
   the harm, it cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to
   another reason for the harm”. Shaikh, 588 F.3d at 864 (citation omitted).
          Peres contends the BIA mischaracterized the record when it found her
   persecutors were motivated by financial gain rather than a protected ground.

                                         2
Case: 22-60339      Document: 00516645636          Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/14/2023

                                    No. 22-60339

   She asserted two events as her bases for establishing persecution: the robbery
   of her father’s store; and the kidnapping of her and her mother.
          Regarding the former, she testified that the criminals threatened she
   was going “to pay the consequences” for her father’s actions. While she
   believed the threat meant she would pay for her father’s decision to stop
   supporting the government, she never asserted in her testimony that the
   criminals’ decision to rob the store was because of her father’s support of the
   opposition. Furthermore, as the BIA noted, the newspaper article Peres
   submitted stated the robbers had been committing crimes in the shopping
   center for months, which supports the conclusion that the robbery was not
   politically motivated, but rather was motivated by criminality and a desire for
   financial gain. The record does not compel a different conclusion. See, e.g.,
   id. (persecution was not on account of religion where criminals extorted all
   business people in neighborhood); Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 792–93
   (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding denial of asylum where IJ concluded conduct
   “driven by a criminal, non-political motive”).
          For the latter event, Peres fails to show the kidnapping by unknown
   individuals was motivated by her political opinion. Though she contends the
   kidnappers’ vague threat she would have to “pay for it all” shows they
   abducted her for political reasons, there is no evidence that the kidnappers
   even knew about her support for the opposition party. Further, that the
   kidnappers released her without demanding a ransom does not mean her
   political opinion was a “central reason” for the kidnapping, especially where
   the kidnappers never mentioned the government or Peres’ support for the
   opposition. E.g., Shaikh, 588 F.3d at 864. Again, the evidence does not
   compel a finding the persecutors were politically motivated. See Wang, 569
   F.3d at 537 (reversal under substantial-evidence standard requires evidence
   “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it”).

                                          3
Case: 22-60339      Document: 00516645636          Page: 4    Date Filed: 02/14/2023

                                    No. 22-60339

          In maintaining the BIA erred in finding she failed to show a well-
   founded fear of future persecution in Venezuela based on her parents’
   remaining in Venezuela unharmed, Peres contends: she is not similarly
   situated to her parents with respect to her political views; and the BIA
   ignored record evidence in support of those differences. Assuming without
   deciding she exhausted this issue, and as discussed supra, there is nothing in
   the record showing Peres’ active opposition to the government played a role
   in either the robbery or the kidnapping she experienced in Venezuela. The
   criminal actors involved in those two incidents never mentioned any of the
   factors Peres relies on to distinguish herself from her parents.
          As stated, there is no evidence that the criminals even knew Peres was
   opposed to the government. Accordingly, the BIA reasonably concluded her
   family’s remaining in Venezuela unharmed diminished the objective
   reasonableness of her fear of persecution. E.g., Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d
   182, 193 (5th Cir. 2004) (“alien’s fear of persecution [was] reduced when his
   family remain[ed] in his native country unharmed”).
          And while the BIA did not directly address her contention that her
   situation was distinguishable from that of her parents because of her political
   activism, this court does not require “the BIA address evidentiary minutiae
   or write any lengthy exegesis”. Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th
   Cir. 1996). The BIA’s decision reflects a “meaningful consideration” of
   whether Peres had a well-founded fear of future persecution; she fails to show
   error. Id.
          DENIED.

                                          4