Court Opinion

ID: 9402957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-19 18:00:33.07009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:03.650408
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60384        Document: 00516791472             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/19/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                  June 19, 2023
                                      No. 22-60384
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                      Clerk
                                    ____________

   Maryoris Walkiria Barahona-Pineda; Allan Eduardo
   Guzman-Barahona;   Brithany    Holibed   Guzman-
   Barahona,

                                                                               Petitioners,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                      Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals
               Agency Nos. A215 933 353, A215 933 355, A215 933 354
                   ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Petitioner Maryoris Walkiria Barahona-Pineda and her minor children
   Allan Eduardo Guzman-Barahona and Brithany Holibed Guzman-Barahona,
   (collectively, “Petitioners”), are natives and citizens of Honduras. They
   request review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60384      Document: 00516791472          Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/19/2023

                                    No. 22-60384

   affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of their applications for asylum,
   withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
   Torture (“CAT”).
          We review the BIA’s decision, but we 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). We review factual findings for substantial
   evidence and legal determinations de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d
   442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001).
          To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant must prove that he or
   she is unwilling or unable to return to his or her home country “‘because of
   persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion,
   nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’”
   Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C.
   § 1101(a)(42)(A)). The applicant must present “‘specific, detailed facts’” to
   demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.
   Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Faddoul
   v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994)).
          Persecution is not mere harassment or discrimination, but instead “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, 397–98 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Majd v. Gonzales, 446
   F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006)). Even if a petitioner claims that he or she
   suffered persecution when their family vehicle was set on fire, one incident
   of arson is not extreme enough to compel a finding of persecution. See id.
   Neither is receipt of a variety of phone calls and letters threatening a
   petitioner’s life sufficient to show past persecution because the threats were
   “exaggerated, non-specific, or lacking in immediacy.” Munoz-Granados v.
   Barr, 958 F.3d 402, 407 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal citation and quotation

                                         2
Case: 22-60384        Document: 00516791472        Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/19/2023

                                    No. 22-60384

   marks omitted). “Persecution requires more. As our distinguished colleagues
   from courts of appeals across the country have elaborated, it has the quality
   of a sustained, systematic effort to target an individual on the basis of a
   protected ground.” Gjetani, 968 F.3d at 397. Therefore, there is no basis for
   us to overturn the BIA’s determination here that Petitioners failed to
   demonstrate that they were subjected to past persecution. See Orellana-
   Monson, 685 F.3d at 518.
          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 the Petitioners’ assertions to the
   contrary, the testimony of Barahona-Pineda and her husband merely reflects
   that their family was subjected to general criminal activity. Substantial
   evidence thus supports the BIA’s determination that the Petitioners failed to
   demonstrate that they had a well-founded fear of future persecution on
   account of a protected basis. See Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 153, 159–60
   (5th Cir. 2018).
          To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant has the burden of
   demonstrating that it is more likely than not that he or she will be persecuted
   on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
   group, or political opinion. Cantarero-Lagos v. Barr, 924 F.3d 145, 150 (5th
   Cir. 2019); see also Revencu v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 2018)
   (addressing required nexus between suffered harm and protected ground).
   Petitioners “failed to establish the less stringent ‘well-founded fear’ standard
   of proof required for asylum relief,” so they cannot meet the more stringent
   burden for obtaining withholding of removal and thus are unable to
   demonstrate that the BIA erred in disposing of their claim. Dayo v. Holder,
   687 F.3d 653, 658–59 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted).

                                          3
Case: 22-60384      Document: 00516791472           Page: 4     Date Filed: 06/19/2023

                                     No. 22-60384

          To establish entitlement to relief under the CAT, an alien must prove
   that it is more likely than not that he or she will be tortured with the consent
   or acquiescence of public officials if he or she returns to the particular country
   in question. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). Despite Petitioners’
   assertions to the contrary, the record evidence only weighs against the
   Immigration Judge’s conclusion but does not compel a contrary result.
   Substantial evidence thus supports the determination that Petitioners are not
   entitled to protection under the CAT. See Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d
   766, 769 (5th Cir. 2019). Their petition for review is DENIED.

                                           4