Court Opinion

ID: 9404002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 00:00:42.053018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:10.695768
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60634         Document: 00516794674             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/21/2023

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

                                      ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                      June 21, 2023
                                       No. 22-60634                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                                      Clerk
                                     ____________

   Edgar Armando Garcia-Pacheco,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A206 902 153
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Edgar Armando Garcia-Pacheco, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
   petitions for review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals
   (BIA) of his appeal from the denial of his application for asylum, withholding
   of removal (WOR), and protection under the Convention Against Torture
   (CAT). As discussed below, substantial evidence supports the agency’s

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60634      Document: 00516794674          Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/21/2023

                                    No. 22-60634

   determination that Garcia-Pacheco is not eligible for such relief. See Zhang
   v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
          To qualify for asylum and WOR, Garcia-Pacheco must show a nexus
   between his feared future persecution in Guatemala and one of five protected
   grounds, meaning that “a protected ground (e.g., membership in a particular
   social group),” or PSG, will be “at least one central reason for [the]
   persecuti[on].” Gonzalez-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Vazquez-Guerra v.
   Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 271 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022).
   Of Garcia-Pacheco’s three proposed PSGs, one is his family group and two
   relate to his opposition to gangs; however, he explains that “all of [his
   asserted PSGs] contemplate his familial ties to the Garcia-Pacheco Family,”
   and his sole nexus argument relies on that family relationship and the 2013
   kidnapping of his cousin for ransom by criminals.          Given that attacks
   motivated by criminal intentions do not provide a basis for protection and
   that Garcia-Pacheco’s own testimony shows that his immediate family has
   remained in his small hometown of Guatemala unharmed, the evidence does
   not compel the conclusion that no reasonable factfinder could find him
   ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. See Vazquez-Guerra, 7
   F.4th at 270; Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
          To obtain CAT protection, Garcia-Pacheco must show a likelihood
   that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the
   Guatemalan government. Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344-45. Given the summary
   nature of his assertions in this regard and his unparticularized citations to
   large sections of the record, the evidence does not compel a conclusion that
   no reasonable factfinder could have denied him CAT protection. See Chen,
   470 F.3d at 1134. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

                                              2