Court Opinion

ID: 9351884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-04 01:00:20.113203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:04:10.034896
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60036         Document: 00516595461              Page: 1       Date Filed: 01/03/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                              Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-60036
                                     Summary Calendar                                       FILED
                                                                                      January 3, 2023
                                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
   Agustin Pahua Sanchez,                                                                   Clerk

                                                                                       Petitioner,

                                              versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                     Respondent.

                          Petition for Review of an Order of the
                              Board of Immigration Appeals
                                Agency No. A200 222 082

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Agustin Pahua Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions us
   for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding his
   removal and the denial of relief from removal.
         Pahua Sanchez’s brief does not make entirely clear whether he seeks
   review of the denial of asylum or the denial of withholding of removal; we

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60036         Document: 00516595461                Page: 2        Date Filed: 01/03/2023

                                            No. 22-60036

   construe it as seeking review of both. 1 On petition for review of a Board
   decision, we review factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of
   law de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). The
   substantial-evidence standard applies to review of decisions denying asylum
   and withholding of removal. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir.
   2005). This standard requires that the Board’s conclusion be based on the
   evidence presented and that its decision be substantially reasonable. Id.
   Under this standard, reversal is improper unless the evidence compels a
   contrary conclusion. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.
   1996).
            We are not compelled to find that Pahua Sanchez has proven a past or
   future persecution asylum claim. The past harm he describes, namely, one
   instance where he and his uncle were extorted, threatened, struck with a gun,
   and witnessed a kidnapping, is not extreme enough to qualify as persecution.
   Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006); Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch,
   794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding economic extortion is not
   persecution); Tesfamichael v Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109, 114, 116-17 (5th Cir.
   2006) (holding that most threats are not persecution); see Singh v. Barr, 818
   F. App’x 331, 334 (5th Cir. 2020) (holding minor beatings are not
   persecution). To the extent Pahua Sanchez argues that his uncle was
   persecuted, those harms cannot be imputed to him. Morales v. Sessions, 860
   F.3d 812, 816 (5th Cir. 2017). The unreasonableness of Pahua Sanchez’s fear
   of future persecution is supported by the record as his family has lived safely
   since his departure and he primarily references general conditions of

            1
              Although we are mindful that briefs prepared by counsel, like Pahua Sanchez’s
   brief, are not entitled to liberal construction, Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir.
   1986), the elements required to prove asylum and withholding claims are identical. See
   Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019). We analyze both accordingly.

                                                  2
Case: 22-60036     Document: 00516595461           Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/03/2023

                                    No. 22-60036

   violence. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 193 (5th Cir. 2004). Pahua
   Sanchez also argues that he was persecuted because of his membership in a
   particular social group of his family, but without establishing past or future
   persecution, his asylum and withholding claims fail. So, analysis of the other
   elements is unnecessary. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). As
   the record does not support the past or future persecution claims with
   regards to asylum, withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Dayo v.
   Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658-59 (5th Cir. 2012).
          We lack jurisdiction to consider Pahua Sanchez’s arguments about his
   Notice to Appear as he did not first present these claims to the Board.
   Vazquez v. Sessions, 885 F.3d 862, 867-69 (5th Cir. 2018).
          Accordingly, Pahua Sanchez’s petition is DENIED in part and
   DISMISSED in part.

                                         3