Court Opinion

ID: 9899602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 01:00:33.587365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:41.915939
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60188        Document: 00516971251             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/16/2023

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

                                     ____________                               FILED
                                                                        November 16, 2023
                                      No. 23-60188
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                            Clerk
                                    ____________

   Nancy Cristina Hernandez-Ramos,

                                                                                   Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                       Petition for Review from an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A209 436 978
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Nancy Cristina Hernandez-Ramos, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
   petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) upholding
   the denial of her application for asylum; withholding of removal; and
   protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). She contends the
   BIA erred by: concluding that, for her asylum claim, she failed to establish

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60188        Document: 00516971251          Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/16/2023

                                      No. 23-60188

   past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution; failing to
   meaningfully consider relevant substantial evidence; and denying
   withholding of removal and protection under CAT.
             Our court reviews the BIA’s decision, considering the decision of the
   immigration judge only to the extent it influenced the BIA. E.g., Singh v.
   Barr, 920 F.3d 255, 258–59 (5th Cir. 2019). The BIA’s factual determination
   that an individual is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT
   relief is reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard. E.g., Chen v.
   Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, reversal
   is improper unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. “The
   applicant has the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that
   no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id. Questions
   of law are reviewed de novo. E.g., Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 153, 158 (5th
   Cir. 2018).
             First, Hernandez contends the BIA erred in concluding she did not
   endure past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. To be
   eligible for asylum, she must show either factor resulted from her
   membership in a particular social group: in this instance, lesbians. E.g., id.
   at 159.
             Over nine months, Hernandez experienced verbal denigration, objects
   thrown at her home, and one instance of physical harm that resulted in
   bruising. Although she suffered obvious mistreatment, the evidence does not
   compel concluding her past harm rose to the level of persecution. See Qorane
   v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 908–10 (5th Cir. 2019) (upholding BIA’s conclusion of
   no past persecution when applicant was verbally abused, slapped, shoved,
   and threatened with incarceration and death).
             Absent her showing past persecution, Hernandez must establish the
   requisite well-founded fear of future persecution by showing an objectively

                                           2
Case: 23-60188      Document: 00516971251          Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/16/2023

                                    No. 23-60188

   reasonable, and subjective fear of, persecution. E.g., Cabrera, 890 F.3d at
   159–60. Hernandez contends her fear of future persecution is objectively
   reasonable because a pattern or practice of persecution exists against lesbians
   in El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii) (outlining avenues to
   establish well-founded fear of persecution).
          The BIA concluded the evidence failed to show persecution of
   lesbians so systemic or pervasive in El Salvador to constitute a pattern or
   practice of persecution. Hernandez contends the frequency of harm to
   lesbians is underreported in El Salvador.       (The Government responds
   erroneously that this contention was not exhausted for purposes of 8 U.S.C.
   § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion requirement). See Abubaker Abushagif v. Garland,
   15 F.4th 323, 333 (5th Cir. 2021) (“[W]e only need to be able to reasonably
   tie the appellate theories to the petitioner’s concrete statement[s] made to
   the Board . . . .” (second alteration in original) (citation omitted)).)
   Nevertheless, Hernandez has not shown the record compels a contrary
   conclusion. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1137–38. Additionally, contrary to her
   contention, the BIA did not require her to show lesbians were persecuted in
   El Salvador more than transgender individuals.
          Second, regarding her contention that the BIA failed to meaningfully
   consider relevant evidence, the BIA’s decision reflects she “received full and
   fair consideration of all circumstances” giving rise to her claims. Ghotra v.
   Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 290 (5th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).
          Finally, concerning withholding of removal and CAT relief, because
   Hernandez fails to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, she also has not
   satisfied her burden for withholding of removal. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1138
   (“[T]he requirement of clear probability of persecution requires the
   applicant to show a higher objective likelihood of persecution than that
   required for asylum.”). And, CAT relief requires showing she, more likely

                                          3
Case: 23-60188      Document: 00516971251          Page: 4   Date Filed: 11/16/2023

                                    No. 23-60188

   than not, would be tortured in El Salvador involving state action. E.g.,
   Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 350–51 (5th Cir. 2006). But, her
   challenge to the denial of CAT relief relies on the same failed contentions she
   raises regarding asylum.
          DENIED.

                                         4