Court Opinion

ID: 9966070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-04 01:00:42.23393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:07.573277
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60344           Document: 46-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/03/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                               May 3, 2024
                                   No. 23-60344
                                 Summary Calendar                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                 ____________                                     Clerk

Reina Isabel Lopez-Gonzalez; Belinda Yamileth
Chavarria-Lopez; Nazario Everildo Chavarria-
Morales,

                                                                            Petitioners,

                                         versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                            Respondent.
                  ______________________________

                     Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                          Agency Nos. A209 852 633,
                         A209 852 640, A216 424 632
                  ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Reina Isabel Lopez-Gonzalez, Belinda Yamileth Chavarria-Lopez, and
Nazario Everildo Chavarria-Morales, natives and citizens of Guatemala,
petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60344        Document: 46-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 05/03/2024

(BIA) upholding the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
       Our court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the decision of the
immigration judge (IJ) only to the extent it influenced the BIA. E.g., Singh v.
Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Questions of law are reviewed de
novo. E.g., Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 288 (5th Cir. 2019). Factual
findings, including the IJ’s adverse-credibility finding against Lopez-
Gonzales, are reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard.             E.g.,
Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 763–64 (5th Cir. 2020). Under that
standard, Petitioners have “the burden of showing that the evidence is so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion”.
Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
       Petitioners’ challenge to the adverse-credibility determination against
Lopez-Gonzalez is unavailing. The IJ noted inconsistencies in her hearing
testimony and credible-fear interview. Lopez-Gonzalez did not offer any
persuasive explanations for those inconsistencies. Petitioners fail to provide
evidence compelling a contrary conclusion. See, e.g., Avelar-Oliva, 954 F.3d
at 763–64, 767–69.
       Petitioners also fail to show evidence compelling a conclusion
contrary to the BIA’s, that the cumulative past harm (physical and non-
physical) to Petitioners fell short of persecution. E.g., Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134;
Munoz-Granados, 958 F.3d at 406–07. “Persecution is an extreme concept
that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as
offensive.” Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958 F.3d 402, 406 (5th Cir. 2020)
(citation omitted); see also Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109, 114 (5th
Cir. 2006) (“[T]he alien’s harm or suffering need not be physical, but may
take other forms, such as the deliberate imposition of severe economic
disadvantage or the deprivation of liberty, food, housing, employment or
Case: 23-60344        Document: 46-1      Page: 3     Date Filed: 05/03/2024

other essentials of life”. (citation omitted)). Despite the threats, vandalism,
and acts of intimidation Petitioners allegedly experienced, they were never
physically harmed or confronted face-to-face before leaving Guatemala.
Petitioners were also never certain of the alleged persecutors, and no
evidence showed those they suspected ever harmed anyone physically, inside
or outside of Lopez-Gonzalez’ family.
         Petitioners also fail to provide evidence compelling a conclusion
contrary to the BIA’s, that Petitioners failed to show the government in
Guatemala was unable or unwilling to protect them. As noted supra, Lopez-
Gonzalez and Chavarria-Morales testified that they reported some of the
incidents to the police but conceded they did not know the identity of the
perpetrators. “A government is not ‘unable or unwilling’ to protect against
private violence merely because it has difficulty solving crimes or anticipating
future acts of violence.” Bertrand v. Garland, 36 F.4th 627, 632 (5th Cir.
2022).
         Petitioners’ contentions concerning a well-founded fear of
persecution for asylum, a clear probability of persecution for withholding of
removal, and protection under the CAT were not exhausted in the BIA. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (requiring exhaustion).            In the light of the
Government’s exhaustion objections, we do not consider these contentions.
E.g., Carreon v. Garland, 71 F.4th 247, 257 & n.11 (5th Cir. 2023).
         Lastly, the BIA’s decision “must reflect meaningful consideration of
the relevant substantial evidence supporting the alien’s claims”. Abdel-
Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996). The BIA is not required,
however, to “write an exegesis on every contention”. Ghotra, 912 F.3d at
290 (citation omitted). The BIA’s decision in this petition is adequate to
show full and fair consideration of Petitioners’ claims. See id.
         DENIED.