Court Opinion

ID: 9384379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-03 18:01:19.345155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:53.054264
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60221        Document: 00516698227             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/03/2023

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

                                     ____________                              FILED
                                                                            April 3, 2023
                                      No. 21-60221                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                           Clerk
                                    ____________

   Carlos Rodolfo Cornejo Paredes,

                                                                                  Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A216 464 443
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Carlos Rodolfo Cornejo Paredes, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
   petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   dismissing his appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of
   cancellation of removal and withholding of removal.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60221       Document: 00516698227          Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/03/2023

                                     No. 21-60221

            This court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s decision
   only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d
   511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). By adopting the IJ’s decision and citing to Matter of
   Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), the BIA effectively preserved
   the IJ’s decision for review. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.
   1997).
            The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and
   its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 517-
   18. The substantial evidence test “requires only that the BIA’s decision be
   supported by record evidence and be substantially reasonable.” Omagah v.
   Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2002). This court will not reverse the
   BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.
   Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518.
            Cornejo Paredes argues that the BIA erred in denying his application
   for cancellation of removal based on the finding that he had failed to show
   that his United States citizen stepdaughter would suffer exceptional and
   extremely unusual hardship upon his removal to El Salvador.
            After the completion of briefing in this case, this court decided
   Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022), and held that
   the hardship determination “is a discretionary and authoritative decision”
   which “is beyond [this court’s] review” under the jurisdiction-stripping
   provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Castillo-Gutierrez, 43 F.4th at 481.
   Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Cornejo Paredes’s
   challenge to the BIA’s hardship determination. See Patel v. Garland, 142 S.
   Ct. 1614, 1622 (2022); Castillo-Gutierrez, 43 F.4th at 481.
            This court likewise lacks jurisdiction over Cornejo Paredes’s related
   argument that the BIA erred in failing to explicitly acknowledge his
   stepdaughter’s sexual assault and the fact that she bore a child as a result of

                                          2
Case: 21-60221          Document: 00516698227                Page: 3       Date Filed: 04/03/2023

                                            No. 21-60221

   that assault in its analysis of hardship. 1 In Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377
   (5th Cir. 2007), this court concluded that a reviewable legal question was not
   raised by a claim that the agency failed to consider all the relevant factors in
   deciding whether there was exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to
   support an application for discretionary cancellation of removal.2
           Cornejo Paredes next argues that the BIA erred in denying
   withholding of removal based on the finding that he had failed to show the
   requisite nexus between the harm he suffered and feared in El Salvador and
   his proposed social group of “members of the Cornejo family.”3
           Though Cornejo Paredes’s family members were harassed and
   extorted by the gangs in El Salvador, there is no evidence that gang members
   were motivated by any particular animus towards the Cornejo family.
   Instead, “[t]he record . . . reflects that any violence, extortion, or harassment
   suffered by [Cornejo Paredes’s family] stemmed from criminal motives,”
           _____________________
           1
              Cornejo Paredes claims that he is a “viable candidate” for a U-visa as the
   stepfather of a United States citizen child who was the victim of a sexual assault, and he
   asks this court to remand his case to the BIA to allow him to pursue a U-visa, but this
   court’s affirmance of the BIA’s removal order does not preclude him from pursuing such
   relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(ii) (stating that “[a]n alien who is the subject of a final order
   of removal, deportation, or exclusion is not precluded from filing a petition for U-1
   nonimmigrant status”). As such, remand is not warranted.
           2
            This holding in Sung was abrogated by Guerrero Trejo v. Garland, 3 F.4th 760, 768
   (5th Cir. 2021); however, this court recently concluded that Guerrero Trejo was itself
   abrogated by Patel. See Castillo-Gutierrez, 43 F.4th at 481.
           3
              Cornejo Paredes states in his summary of the argument that his case should be
   remanded so that the BIA can consider the cognizability of his family-based social group in
   light of the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 304 (U.S.
   Att’y Gen. 2021). Though the IJ found that Cornejo Paredes’s family-based social group
   was cognizable, the BIA expressly declined to address cognizability because “the nexus
   issue [was] dispositive.” This court has upheld a lack-of-nexus finding even where, as in
   this case, the BIA “did not analyze whether [the petitioner’s] nuclear family constituted a
   particular social group before making its nexus determination.” Vazquez-Guerra v.
   Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 268 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022). Because we
   agree with the BIA’s finding of no nexus, remand is not warranted for consideration of the
   cognizability of Cornejo Paredes’s family-based social group. See id.

                                                   3
Case: 21-60221        Document: 00516698227              Page: 4       Date Filed: 04/03/2023

                                          No. 21-60221

   and “[c]onduct that is driven by criminal . . . motives does not constitute
   persecution” on account of a protected ground. See Vasquez-De Lopez v.
   Lynch, 620 F. App’x 293, 295 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380
   F.3d 788, 792-93 (5th Cir. 2004)). Thus, the BIA reasonably found that
   Cornejo Paredes had not established the requisite nexus between the harm
   he feared in El Salvador and his membership in a family-based social group.
   See Omagah , 288 F.3d at 258.
           Cornejo Paredes also argues that the BIA erred in adopting the IJ’s
   finding that his proposed social group of Salvadoran expatriates was not
   cognizable because it lacked particularity and social distinction.
           This court held that “persons believed to be wealthy because they are
   returning to their home country from the United States do not constitute a
   sufficiently particular social group to support an application for withholding
   of removal.” Gonzalez-Soto v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 682, 684 (5th Cir. 2016).
   Because the BIA’s decision to affirm the IJ’s rejection of Cornejo Paredes’s
   proposed social group of Salvadoran expatriates is supported by substantial
   evidence and this court’s precedent, it should be upheld. 4 See Orellana-
   Monson, 685 F.3d at 517-18.
           The petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in
   part.

           _____________________
           4
             In his summary of the argument, Cornejo Paredes also argues that the BIA erred
   in denying withholding of removal based on the finding that he had failed to show past
   persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. He does not elaborate on this
   argument in the body of his brief and, therefore, has abandoned the issue. See Soadjede v.
   Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (stating that issues not briefed are abandoned).
           To the extent that Cornejo Paredes argues that his due process rights were
   somehow violated based on the BIA’s adoption of the IJ’s denial of his claim for
   withholding of removal, he makes the argument only in passing and makes no effort to show
   the requisite “substantial prejudice” to be successful on a due process claim. See Calderon-
   Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986); Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th
   Cir. 1997).

                                                4