Court Opinion

ID: 9353020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 19:00:52.7373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:54.368692
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60164        Document: 00516604284             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/10/2023

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

                                      No. 22-60164                                    FILED
                                                                               January 10, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Vilma Mejia-Garcia,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A205 151 691

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Vilma Mejia-Garcia, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
   review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing her appeal
   from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denying withholding of removal and
   protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).                        She also

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60164      Document: 00516604284          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/10/2023

                                    No. 22-60164

   maintains her due-process rights were violated by the IJ’s bias in conducting
   her proceedings; and requests her petition be held in abeyance until a
   decision is issued on her request for prosecutorial discretion.
          Because Mejia failed to exhaust her claim that Honduran officials were
   unable or unwilling to protect her from her alleged persecutors, our court
   lacks jurisdiction to consider the propriety of this conclusion. E.g., Martinez-
   Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 359–60 (5th Cir. 2022) (explaining claims
   “BIA never had a chance to consider” are unexhausted (citation omitted));
   8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Additionally, because showing that officials are
   unable or unwilling to control the applicant’s alleged persecutors is an
   essential element of a withholding claim, we need not consider her remaining
   assertions concerning this form of relief. E.g., Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395,
   402, 406 (5th Cir. 2021) (noting “unable or unwilling to control” factor is
   essential element of claim for withholding); INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24,
   25 (1976) (stating that “[a]s a general rule courts and agencies are not
   required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to
   the results they reach”).
          Her challenge to the dismissal of her CAT claim fails because she has
   not shown she will be tortured with governmental acquiescence if removed.
   E.g., Tabora Gutierrez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 496, 502 (5th Cir. 2021)
   (explaining CAT protection requires showing “it is more likely than not that
   [applicant] . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of
   removal” (citation omitted)). Because governmental inability to assist does
   not amount to its acquiescence for CAT purposes, Mejia fails to make the
   requisite showing. Id. at 504.
          For her due-process claim, Mejia asserts her rights were violated by
   the IJ’s: manner, method of questioning her, and failure to comply with the
   requisite portion of the Ethics and Professionalism Guide for Immigration

                                          2
Case: 22-60164      Document: 00516604284           Page: 3     Date Filed: 01/10/2023

                                     No. 22-60164

   Judges (the Guide). The BIA concluded: the Guide provides no rights to
   litigants; and Mejia failed to preserve her allegations of judicial misconduct,
   and, alternatively, that her contentions lacked merit.            Constitutional
   challenges raised in removal proceedings are reviewed de novo. Nkenglefac v.
   Garland, 34 F.4th 422, 427 (5th Cir. 2022). Even assuming arguendo Mejia
   preserved this claim, she fails to show bias by the IJ, as she has not shown
   “hostility . . . due to extrajudicial sources or . . . a deep-seated favoritism or
   antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible”. Cardona-Franco v.
   Garland, 35 F.4th 359, 363 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).
          Finally, she presents no persuasive contentions and cites no authority
   showing she should receive an abeyance while she seeks an exercise of
   prosecutorial discretion.
          DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

                                           3
Case: 22-60164     Document: 00516604284          Page: 4   Date Filed: 01/10/2023

                                   No. 22-60164

   Haynes, Circuit Judge, concurring:
          I concur in the majority opinion but write to add an explanation
   regarding the abeyance issue. As mentioned in the majority opinion, Mejia-
   Garcia references a motion she filed for abeyance pending her request for
   prosecutorial discretion which was denied by a single judge.          It was
   unopposed but sought only a limited period of abeyance (until August 29,
   2022). She did not file a motion for reconsideration at the time, and that
   motion is now clearly moot. In the brief, she mentioned only that the request
   for prosecutorial discretion was still pending so she sought “an abeyance
   order from this court in these proceedings” so that it could be adjudicated
   (and that her motion had been denied). She gave no time limit or statement
   of any Governmental agreement (or even any clarity as to her request).
   Accordingly, I concur.

                                        4