Court Opinion

ID: 9895716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 16:01:25.778831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:25.594869
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60254        Document: 00516959111             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/07/2023

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

                                                                                        FILED
                                      No. 23-60254                               November 7, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________
                                                                                          Clerk

   Rubenia Carolina Matute-Munguia; Jeyson Estiven
   Cruz-Matute; Wilson Estevan Cruz-Matute; Ashley
   Anahi Cruz-Matute,

                                                                               Petitioners,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                             Agency Nos. A208 751 681,
                            A208 751 682, A208 751 683,
                                     A208 751 688
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Rubenia Carolina Matute-Munguia and her three children, Jeyson
   Estiven Cruz-Matute, Wilson Estevan Cruz-Matute, and Ashley Anahi

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60254     Document: 00516959111           Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                    No. 23-60254

   Cruz-Matute, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
   Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and
   protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). They are natives
   and citizens of Honduras, and the children were derivatives on Matute-
   Munguia’s application for relief.
          Because the BIA affirmed without opinion in this case, the underlying
   decision of the immigration judge (IJ) is the proper focus of our review here.
   See Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 409 (5th Cir. 2006). Legal questions
   are generally reviewed de novo. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517
   (5th Cir. 2012). The BIA’s factual determination that an individual is not
   eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief is reviewed under
   the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th
   Cir. 2006). Under that standard, “[t]he petitioner has the burden of showing
   that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a
   contrary conclusion.” Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518 (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted).
          With respect to asylum and withholding of removal, Matute-Munguia
   claimed membership in two particular social groups: “persons in professions
   susceptible to extortion” and “women and girls with certain profiles or in
   specific circumstances, witness to gang violence.” To be cognizable, a PSG
   must be (1) comprised of persons who share an immutable characteristic, (2)
   particularly defined, and (3) socially distinct within the society at issue.
   Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 229 (5th Cir. 2019). The petitioners
   have not shown that the IJ erred in determining that their proposed PSGs
   were not cognizable. See Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786-
   87 (5th Cir. 2016); Gonzalez-Soto v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 682, 684 (5th Cir. 2016);
   Mwembie, 443 F.3d at 414-15. They thus cannot demonstrate eligibility for
   asylum or withholding of removal. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 522.

                                         2
Case: 23-60254      Document: 00516959111          Page: 3     Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                    No. 23-60254

   Accordingly, we need not address their remaining arguments on those forms
   of relief. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
          To obtain protection under the CAT, an applicant must demonstrate
   that, in the proposed country of removal, it is more likely than not that she
   would be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, a public official or other
   person acting in an official capacity. Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d
   222, 228 (5th Cir. 2019). Thus, the applicant must show both that (1) she
   more likely than not would suffer torture and (2) sufficient state action would
   be involved in that torture. Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 350-51
   (5th Cir. 2006). “Acquiescence by the government includes willful blindness
   of torturous activity.” Gonzales-Veliz, 938 F.3d at 225 (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted).
          Regarding state involvement, the petitioners assert that the local
   police failed to apprehend any suspects for the shootings of Matute-
   Munguia’s mother and brother. Matute-Munguia’s testimony reflected that
   she had only limited and vague information about the shootings and that the
   police made a report on the shootings but were unable to apprehend anyone.
   “[A] government’s inability to protect its citizens does not amount to
   acquiescence.” Martinez Manzanares, 925 F.3d at 229 (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding
   that the petitioners failed to show that any torture would involve the requisite
   state action. See id.
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                          3