Court Opinion

ID: 9412916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 22:00:45.553255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:40.448110
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60013        Document: 00516841870             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/01/2023

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

                                                                                      FILED
                                      No. 23-60013                               August 1, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Jenny Yaquelin Canales-Galindo; Skarleth Gissel
   Rubio-Canales,

                                                                               Petitioners,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                             Agency Nos. A209 898 822,
                                     A209 898 823
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jenny Yaquelin Canales-Galindo and her child, Skarleth Gissel Rubio-
   Canales, are natives and citizens of Honduras. They petition for review of
   the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of their appeal from
   the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of Canales-Galindo’s application for

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60013     Document: 00516841870           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/01/2023

                                    No. 23-60013

   asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
   Against Torture (CAT). Rubio-Canales is a derivative beneficiary of her
   mother’s application.
          We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s underlying
   decision only if it impacted the BIA’s decision, as it did here. See Sharma v.
   Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Findings of fact, including the
   denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, are reviewed
   under the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131,
   1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may not
   reverse a factual finding unless the evidence compels such a reversal—i.e.,
   the evidence must be “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could
   reach a contrary conclusion.” Id. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
   Sharma, 729 F.3d at 411.
          Regarding her asylum and withholding of removal claims, Canales-
   Galindo has failed to show that the record compels the conclusion that her
   former partner abused her on account of her membership in the proffered
   particular social groups of “persons not protected by the authorities” or
   “wom[e]n that [are] mistreated and subjected to domestic violence,” rather
   than based on personal and criminal motives. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134;
   Sharma, 729 F.3d at 411-12. Conduct driven by purely personal or criminal
   motives does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground for
   purposes of asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Thuri v. Ashcroft,
   380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004); Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d
   222, 227-28 (5th Cir. 2019).
          As to her CAT claim, Canales-Galindo has failed to show that the
   record compels the conclusion that she would likely be tortured with the
   acquiescence of the Honduran government. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134, 1141.
   Although her abusive former partner threatened her with his claimed

                                         2
Case: 23-60013      Document: 00516841870           Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/01/2023

                                     No. 23-60013

   connection to the police, Canales-Galindo testified that she is unaware if he
   is actually so connected and, further, that she did not follow her doctor’s
   advice to file a police report. She argues only that the Honduran government
   may not be able to prevent her former partner from further torturing her,
   which does not compel the conclusion that there would be sufficient state
   action involved in the feared torture. See Martinez Manzanares, 925 F.3d at
   229; see also Aviles-Tavera v. Garland, 22 F.4th 478, 486 (5th Cir. 2022)
   (confirming that “a foreign government’s failure to apprehend the persons
   threatening the alien or the lack of financial resources to eradicate the threat
   or risk of torture do not constitute sufficient state action”) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted).

          Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

                                          3