Court Opinion

ID: 9412294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-29 00:00:37.061276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:38.238495
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60066        Document: 00516838852             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/28/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-60066
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                                 July 28, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   Norma Francisca Herrera-Alvarez,                                                  Clerk

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A215 718 137
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Norma Francisca Herrera-Alvarez, a native and citizen of Honduras,
   petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   dismissing her appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) ordering
   her removed and denying her application for asylum and withholding of
   removal.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60066      Document: 00516838852          Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/28/2023

                                    No. 23-60066

          This court reviews the denial of asylum and withholding for
   substantial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
   Pursuant to this standard, this court may not disturb the BIA’s decision
   unless the evidence “compels” a contrary conclusion. Id. (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted). This court considers the IJ’s decision only
   insofar as it influences the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th
   Cir. 2018). Insofar as Herrera-Alvarez asserts that the BIA did not issue its
   own opinion, she is wrong.
          One seeking asylum must show that officials are unable or unwilling
   to protect her from persecution on account of a protected ground. Jaco v.
   Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 402 (5th Cir. 2021). One seeking withholding must
   show that she “more likely than not” will be persecuted due to a protected
   ground if repatriated. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because withholding “is a
   higher standard than asylum,” one who fails to show eligibility for the latter
   necessarily fails to show eligibility for the former. Id. Accordingly, Herrera-
   Alvarez’s argument that the BIA did not properly consider her withholding
   claim is unavailing. See id.
          Likewise unavailing are her arguments challenging the BIA’s
   conclusion that she failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of
   persecution, as she has not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion
   contrary to that of the BIA on this issue. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344; see also
   Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 395-99 (5th Cir. 2020); Singh, 920 F.3d at 259;
   Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2004). Because persecution is
   an essential element of a claim for asylum or withholding, there is no need to
   address Herrera-Alvarez’s remaining arguments. See INS v. Bagamasbad,
   429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam). The petition for review is DENIED.

                                         2