Court Opinion

ID: 9403406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 00:00:35.371005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:06.715388
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60007        Document: 00516792919             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/20/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-60007
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                FILED
                                                                            June 20, 2023
                                    ____________
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
   Maria Dilcia Cruz-Guevara,                                                   Clerk

                                                                                   Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A206 803 137
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Maria Dilcia Cruz-Guevara, a native and citizen of Honduras,
   petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
   dismissing her appeal from a decision of an Immigration Judge ordering her
   removed and denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal,
   and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60007      Document: 00516792919          Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/20/2023

                                    No. 23-60007

   the denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT claims for substantial evidence.
   Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Pursuant to this
   standard, we may not disturb the BIA’s decision unless the evidence
   “compels” a contrary conclusion. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). Cruz-Guevara has not met this standard.
          With respect to her asylum and withholding claims, she has not
   meaningfully contested the BIA’s conclusion that she failed to show that
   Honduran officials would be unwilling or unable to protect her from
   persecution and thus has not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion
   contrary to that of the agency on this issue. See id.; see also Sanchez-Amador
   v. Garland, 30 F.4th 529, 534 (5th Cir. 2022); Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395,
   402 (5th Cir. 2021); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
   Because official unwillingness or inability to protect the alien from
   persecution is an essential element of claims for asylum and withholding, she
   has not met the substantial evidence standard with respect to these claims,
   and there is no need to address her remaining arguments concerning these
   forms of relief. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344; Jaco, 24 F.4th at 402; INS v.
   Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam).
          Similarly, she has not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion
   contrary to that of the agency on the issue whether she more likely than not
   will be tortured with governmental acquiescence if repatriated and thus has
   not met the substantial evidence standard with respect to her CAT claim. See
   Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017); Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates,
   846 F.3d 806, 812 (5th Cir. 2017). The petition for review is DENIED.

                                              2