Court Opinion

ID: 9838335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-06 00:00:31.000006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:27.618071
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60088         Document: 00516884284             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/05/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-60088
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                              September 5, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Deymer Oscar Martagon Cerezo,                                                       Clerk

                                                                                  Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A209 311 230
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Deymer Oscar Martagon Cerezo, a native and citizen of Mexico,
   petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA),
   dismissing his appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of
   withholding of removal.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60088       Document: 00516884284             Page: 2      Date Filed: 09/05/2023

                                        No. 23-60088

          This court reviews the BIA’s decision but 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). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for
   substantial evidence and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Id. 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.                   Chen v.
   Gonzalez, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). “The applicant has the burden
   of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder
   could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id.
          Martagon Cerezo argues that his credible testimony established that
   his membership in a particular social group (PSG) consisting of his mother’s
   family members was “one central reason” for the harm he fears in Mexico
   and that the BIA erred in finding that he had failed to show the requisite
   nexus. 1 See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019);
   8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).
          Martagon Cerezo relies on Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944
   (4th Cir. 2015), to argue that he has satisfied the nexus requirement. Aside
   from the fact that a decision from another circuit is not controlling on this
   court, we have rejected the Fourth Circuit’s approach in Hernandez-Avalos
   as “inconsistent” with the text of the immigration statute and with the
   caselaw of the BIA, this court, “and the majority view of other circuits.”
          _____________________
          1
             Martagon Cerezo also argues that the BIA erred in applying the more stringent
   “one central reason” standard that applies to asylum claims when denying his claim for
   withholding of removal based on nexus. He contends that the standard for showing nexus
   for withholding of removal is the lower “a reason” standard. He acknowledges, however,
   that this court has already rejected this argument in Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th
   265, 271 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022).

                                              2
Case: 23-60088     Document: 00516884284          Page: 3    Date Filed: 09/05/2023

                                   No. 23-60088

   Berrios-Bruno v. Garland, No. 18-60276, 2021 WL 3624766 at *5 (5th Cir.
   Aug. 16, 2021) (unpublished); accord Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485,
   492-93 (5th Cir. 2015).
          The BIA correctly found that Martagon Cerezo had failed to show that
   his familial relationship would be “one central reason” for the harm he feared
   in Mexico. Although the BIA acknowledged the horrible circumstance of the
   kidnapping of Martagon Cerezo’s mother and two siblings and noted that
   Martagon Cerezo suspected that the cartel was responsible, the BIA
   emphasized that Martagon Cerezo did not know for certain who had
   kidnapped his family, nor did he know why they had been targeted. Further,
   the BIA noted that there was no evidence that any of his mother’s relatives
   living in Mexico had been harmed in the years following her apparent
   abduction. See Ramirez-Mejia, 794 F.3d at 493 (finding no persecution on
   account of family status when “other members of [the petitioner’s] family,
   who have remained in [the petitioner’s native country], have not faced
   persecution on the basis of their membership in the family”).
          Martagon Cerezo has not shown that the evidence compels the
   conclusion that the BIA erred in finding that there was no nexus between his
   feared future persecution and his membership in a PSG consisting of his
   mother’s family members. See Gonzalez-Veliz, 938 F.3d at 224-25; Chen, 470
   F.3d at 1134. Because the BIA’s finding of no nexus is supported by
   substantial evidence and is dispositive, we need not address Martagon
   Cerezo’s arguments related to the BIA’s finding that he failed to show a clear
   probability of future persecution in Mexico based on his PSG membership.
   See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and
   agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
   unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                         3