Court Opinion

ID: 9926834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 19:00:48.014111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:02.368626
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60279       Document: 00517044016             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/25/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit
                                    ____________                                FILED
                                                                         January 25, 2024
                                     No. 23-60279
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
                                   ____________

   Dunia Lizzeth Gomez,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                           versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                    ______________________________

                       Petition for Review of an Order of the
                           Board of Immigration Appeals
                             Agency No. A208 657 350,
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Dunia Lizzeth Gomez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
   review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her
   appeal from a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her application
   for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention

          _____________________
          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set
   forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 23-60279     Document: 00517044016           Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/25/2024

                                    No. 23-60279

   Against Torture (CAT) and ordering her removed. We review the BIA’s
   opinion and consider the IJ’s decision only insofar as it influences the BIA.
   Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).
          Now, Gomez fails to brief, and thus forfeits any arguments she may
   have had concerning, the BIA’s threshold decisions that she waived any
   challenges she may have had to the IJ’s conclusions concerning the timeliness
   of her asylum application and the merits of her CAT claim by not
   meaningfully challenging these conclusions. See Lopez-Perez v. Garland,
   35 F.4th 953, 957 n.1 (5th Cir. 2022). Additionally, because the timeliness
   determination is a sufficient basis for the rejection of the asylum claim, we
   need not consider her remaining arguments concerning this form of relief.
   See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B); Arif v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 677, 679-80 (5th Cir.
   2007); Munoz-De Zelaya v. Garland, 80 F.4th 689, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2023).
   Only her withholding claim remains.
          One who seeks withholding must show it is “more likely than not”
   that officials would be unable or unwilling to protect her from persecution on
   account of a protected ground, such as PSG membership, if she is repatriated.
   Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 401, 406-07 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted).      Because the BIA’s decision concerning
   withholding is reviewed for substantial evidence, we should not disturb it
   unless the evidence “compels” a contrary conclusion. Zhang v. Gonzales,
   432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted).   Because Gomez fails to show that the evidence compels a
   conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the nexus element, she shows no
   error in connection with the rejection of her withholding claim, and we need
   not consider her remaining arguments concerning this form of relief. See id.;
   Jaco, 24 F.4th at 401; Munoz-De Zelaya, 80 F.4th 689 at 693-94. The petition
   for review is DENIED.

                                         2