Court Opinion

ID: 9370563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 01:00:30.411265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:21.656420
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60705        Document: 00516644335             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/13/2023

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

                                      No. 21-60705
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                              February 13, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
   Edwin Eduardo Ibarra-Sanchez,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.

                          Petitions for Review of Orders of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                                Agency No. A046 302 870

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Edwin Eduardo Ibarra-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico and
   former lawful permanent resident of the United States, petitions this court
   for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying
   his applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention
   Against Torture (CAT). Ibarra-Sanchez also petitions for review of the

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60705     Document: 00516644335            Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/13/2023

                                    No. 21-60705

   BIA’s denial of his motions for reconsideration and remand. Because Ibarra-
   Sanchez is proceeding pro se, we liberally construe his filings. See Monsonyem
   v. Garland, 36 F.4th 639, 645 (5th Cir. 2022).
          In seeking review of the denial of withholding of removal and CAT
   relief, Ibarra-Sanchez relies primarily on new evidence that was not properly
   before the BIA. See Enriquez-Gutierrez v. Holder, 612 F.3d 400, 409 (5th Cir.
   2010). We consider that evidence only in relation to his claim of ineffective
   assistance of counsel and his requests for a remand and reconsideration.
   Factual findings are reviewed for “substantial evidence.” Wang v. Holder,
   569 F.3d 531, 536–37 (5th Cir. 2009). The substantial evidence standard is
   deferential, meaning that “administrative findings of fact are conclusive
   unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
   contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
          Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ibarra-
   Sanchez failed to show that “it is more likely than not” that his life or
   freedom as a Jehovah’s Witness would be threatened by persecution if he
   were returned to Mexico. See Lopez-Perez v. Garland, 35 F.4th 953, 957 (5th
   Cir. 2022) (quotation marks and citations omitted).          Further, Ibarra-
   Sanchez’s contention that, for purposes of withholding of removal, his
   proposed group of non-Spanish speakers with substance addiction qualifies
   as a particular social group is unsupported by the record properly before the
   agency. The argument thus does not compel a conclusion contrary to the
   agency’s determination that he failed to show either a particular social group
   or the required nexus to his feared persecution. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432
   F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
          We now consider CAT relief. Contrary to Ibarra-Sanchez’s assertion,
   the BIA did not impose a requirement of past persecution because of a
   particular social group, but properly applied the correct standard for CAT

                                          2
Case: 21-60705        Document: 00516644335         Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/13/2023

                                     No. 21-60705

   relief.    See id. at 344–45 (reciting required showing for CAT relief).
   Moreover, the absence of an adverse credibility finding, and Ibarra-
   Sanchez’s bare contention that the BIA therefore should grant CAT relief,
   fail to compel the conclusion that he faced a likelihood of torture by or with
   government acquiescence if returned to Mexico.              See 8 U.S.C. §
   1252(b)(4)(B).
             Ibarra-Sanchez also contends that he had ineffective assistance of
   counsel.     The BIA determined that the new evidence Ibarra-Sanchez
   submitted to the BIA but which had not be introduced earlier by counsel did
   not show counsel’s alleged errors regarding the evidence “were prejudicial
   to his case.” See Mai v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 162, 165 (5th Cir. 2006). The
   articles and reports, often only partially reproduced, and Ibarra-Sanchez’s
   family’s affidavits, do not indicate that he faced a “clear probability” of
   future persecution on account of a protected ground or likely torture by or
   with the acquiescence of Mexican officials. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344–45.
   Thus, the proposed evidence fails to compel the conclusion that, but for
   counsel’s claimed deficient performance in not submitting this evidence in
   the immigration court, the result of his removal proceedings would probably
   have been different. See Diaz v. Sessions, 894 F.3d 222, 228 (5th Cir. 2018);
   Wang, 569 F.3d at 536–37.
             Ibarra-Sanchez also seeks review of the BIA’s denial of
   reconsideration. The BIA addressed his ineffective assistance claim in its
   decision on appeal. Further, Ibarra-Sanchez’s bare assertions of prejudice
   from counsel’s errors show no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s conclusion
   that he failed to identify any legal error or establish that the BIA overlooked
   some aspect of the case when it rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel
   claim in its initial decision. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 (5th
   Cir. 2008); Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006).

                                          3
Case: 21-60705     Document: 00516644335          Page: 4   Date Filed: 02/13/2023

                                   No. 21-60705

         As to remand, Ibarra-Sanchez contends that his proposed new
   evidence, including two news articles submitted for the first time with his
   motion, substantiates his claims and compels the conclusion that Jehovah’s
   Witnesses and non-Spanish speaking deportees with substance addiction are
   subject to persecution and murder in Mexico. However, Ibarra-Sanchez has
   shown no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s conclusion that remand was not
   warranted because the proposed new evidence was not “likely [to] change
   the result in the case.” See Suate-Orellana v. Barr, 979 F.3d 1056, 1062 (5th
   Cir. 2020).
         The petitions for review are DENIED.

                                        4