Court Opinion

ID: 9393732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 00:00:35.015918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:55.114960
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60015        Document: 00516746227             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/10/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                     May 10, 2023
                                      No. 22-60015
                                    Summary Calendar                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                      Clerk

   Jose Ramon Pineda Reyes,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A216 074 452
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jose Ramon Pineda Reyes, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
   petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   affirming the denial of his applications for cancellation of removal and
   withholding of removal. We DISMISS in part and DENY in part.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60015      Document: 00516746227           Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/10/2023

                                     No. 22-60015

          First, we dismiss Pineda Reyes’s petition insofar as it seeks review of
   the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal. Cancellation of removal is a
   discretionary form of relief and is available to an applicant who shows, among
   other things, that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely
   unusual hardship to a qualifying family member. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
   Pineda Reyes argues that the BIA erred in concluding that he failed to show
   that his lawful permanent resident mother would suffer exceptional and
   extremely unusual hardship. But the agency’s decision on this issue is exempt
   from judicial review. See Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th
   Cir. 2022). We thus lack jurisdiction to review it. Id.
          Second, we deny Pineda Reyes’s petition for review of the agency’s
   denial of withholding of removal. We review the BIA’s decision and consider
   the immigration judge’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA.
   Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings are
   reviewed for substantial evidence and legal determinations are reviewed de
   novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001).
          An applicant is entitled to withholding of removal if he shows a clear
   probability that he will be persecuted on account of his race, religion,
   nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
   8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); Bouchikhi v. Holder, 676 F.3d 173, 181 (5th Cir. 2012).
   “Persecution is a specific term that ‘does not encompass all treatment that
   our society regards as unfair, unjust, or even unlawful or unconstitutional.’”
   Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Majd v. Gonzales,
   446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006)). “It is not harassment, intimidation,
   threats, or even assault.” Id.
          We find no error in the agency’s determination that Pineda Reyes
   failed to show past persecution. Pineda Reyes contends that he suffered past
   persecution when gang members attempted to recruit him and threatened

                                          2
Case: 22-60015      Document: 00516746227          Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/10/2023

                                    No. 22-60015

   him. But he does not claim that he was ever harmed, and unfulfilled threats
   unaccompanied by violence fail to rise to the level of persecution. See
   Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109, 116 (5th Cir. 2006). Indeed, he
   testified that his only interaction with gang members was a single
   conversation about recruitment. There is thus no basis to overturn the BIA’s
   determination that Pineda Reyes failed to demonstrate past persecution.
          Nor is there any basis to overturn the agency’s determination that
   Pineda Reyes failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution.
   To obtain relief on this ground, an applicant must have a subjective fear of
   persecution, the fear must be objectively reasonable, and the fear must have
   a nexus to a protected ground. Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 153, 159-60 (5th
   Cir. 2018). In determining whether there is a nexus, we “examine whether
   the protected ground is one central reason motivating the persecutor, not the
   persecuted.” Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 269 (5th Cir. 2021), cert.
   denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022). Despite his assertions to the contrary, Pineda
   Reyes’s evidence reflects only a fear of general criminal activity, and “an
   applicant’s fear of persecution cannot be based solely on general violence and
   civil disorder.” See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 190 (5th Cir. 2004)
   (emphasis omitted). Nor is there anything in the record to suggest that
   Pineda Reyes would be targeted because of his proposed social group
   consisting of “Salvadoran men who fear violence and delinquency in their
   home country.” Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
   determination that Pineda Reyes failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of
   future persecution on account of a protected ground.
          Based upon the foregoing, the petition for review is DISMISSED in
   part and DENIED in part.

                                         3