Court Opinion

ID: 9375352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 16:00:57.139182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:58.116436
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60929     Document: 00516653964         Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/23/2023

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

                                  No. 21-60929                              FILED
                                Summary Calendar                     February 23, 2023
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
   Elida Hernandez-Guerrero,

                                                                       Petitioner,

                                       versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                     Respondent.

                      Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals
                            Agency No. A205 638 341

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Elida Hernandez-Guerrero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
   for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   dismissing her appeal from a denial by the Immigration Judge (IJ) of her
   application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
   circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-60929      Document: 00516653964          Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/23/2023

                                    No. 21-60929

   Convention Against Torture (CAT). She based her application on her
   kidnapping and assault by unknown individuals, which culminated in an
   extortion demand and on other extortion by gang members that she
   experienced as a business owner. Although we ordinarily review only the
   BIA’s reasoning, we may review the IJ’s decision to the extent it influences
   or is adopted by the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).
          Contrary to Hernandez-Guerrero’s challenge, the record does not
   compel a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA that she failed to establish
   the required nexus between the harm she experienced and a protected
   ground. See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 231 (5th Cir. 2019). This
   record, including Hernandez-Guerrero’s own testimony, substantially
   supports the BIA’s finding that the assault and extortion were criminally
   financially motivated. See id. at 224. The lack of a nexus is dispositive of
   Hernandez-Guerrero’s asylum claim, see Vasquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th
   265, 269 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022), and it is
   therefore unnecessary to address her remaining arguments as to asylum. See
   INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
          As to Hernandez-Guerrero’s challenge that the immigration court
   lacked jurisdiction because the notice to appear did not state the date and
   time of the hearing, we have expressly rejected the argument. See Garcia v.
   Garland, 28 F.4th 644, 646-48 (5th Cir. 2022).
          Hernandez-Guerrero does not challenge the agency’s conclusion that
   she failed to establish entitlement to CAT relief and has thus abandoned such
   an argument. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). As
   well, we lack jurisdiction to consider Hernandez-Guerrero’s argument,
   raised for the first time before this court, that, under the withholding of
   removal standard, she must establish only that a protected ground is “a
   reason” for the persecution, rather than a “central reason” as is required for

                                         2
Case: 21-60929     Document: 00516653964        Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/23/2023

                                 No. 21-60929

   asylum claims. See Tibakweitira v. Wilkinson, 986 F.3d 905, 913 (5th Cir.
   2021).
            Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED in part and
   DISMISSED in part.

                                       3