Court Opinion

ID: 9960372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 00:00:39.37719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:24.498487
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60461           Document: 31-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/15/2024

          `United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                                 FILED
                                   No. 23-60461                              April 15, 2024
                                 Summary Calendar                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                 ____________                                    Clerk

Dunia Esther Maradiaga-Palma; Jessy Nicolle Amaya-
Maradiaga,

                                                                            Petitioners,

                                         versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                           Respondent.
                  ______________________________

                     Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency Nos. A213 138 770,
                                  A213 138 771
                  ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Dunia Esther Maradiaga-Palma and Jessy Nicolle Amaya-Maradiaga,
natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision to uphold the denial of asylum,

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 23-60461        Document: 31-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/15/2024

                                 No. 23-60461

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). Jessy Amaya-Maradiaga is Maradiaga-Palma’s daughter
and was a derivative beneficiary on Maradiaga-Palma’s asylum application.
       We generally review only the BIA’s final decision, but we also
consider the immigration judge’s decision to the extent it influenced the BIA.
Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 268 (5th Cir. 2021). The BIA’s
factual determination that an individual is not eligible for asylum,
withholding of removal, or CAT protection is reviewed under the substantial
evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
Under that standard, the petitioner has the burden of showing “that the
evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary
conclusion.” Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 489 (5th Cir. 2015)
(citation omitted).
       To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must show, among other things,
“that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the
applicant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Withholding of removal requires a
showing that the applicant more likely than not would be persecuted on
account of one of those protected grounds. Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d
219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019). While “a statutorily protected ground need not be
the only reason for harm, it cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial, or
subordinate to another reason for harm.” Id. (quotation marks and citation
omitted). An applicant’s failure to demonstrate this nexus is dispositive for
asylum and withholding of removal. See id.
       Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the
petitioners failed to demonstrate the requisite nexus for asylum and
withholding of removal. The petitioners maintain that they were targeted on
account of Maradiaga-Palma’s actual or imputed political opinion or her

                                       2
Case: 23-60461       Document: 31-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/15/2024

                                No. 23-60461

membership in the proposed particular social groups.        The evidence,
however, does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination
that the gang members’ motivations instead were illicit financial gain and
recruitment of individuals to further their criminal enterprise. Economic
extortion does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground.
Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885, 890 (5th Cir. 2014); Ramirez-Mejia, 794 F.3d
at 493. Additionally, “[t]hreats or attacks motivated by criminal intentions
do not provide a basis for protection.” Vazquez-Guerra, 7 F.4th at 270.
Because the issue of nexus is dispositive here, we do not reach the
petitioners’ additional arguments concerning asylum and withholding of
removal. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
       To obtain protection under the CAT, the applicant must show both
that (1) she more likely than not would suffer torture in the country of
removal and (2) sufficient state action would be involved in that torture.
Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 350–51 (5th Cir. 2006). The
petitioners do not brief any argument disputing the BIA’s determination that
the requisite involvement of state action was not shown for CAT protection.
Accordingly, they have waived the issue and fail to show that the denial of
protection under the CAT was erroneous. Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d
445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008).
       The petition for review is DENIED.

                                      3