Court Opinion

ID: 9368703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-06 19:00:46.381905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:10.007301
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60229         Document: 00516635684             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/06/2023

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

                                       No. 22-60229                                   FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                           February 6, 2023
                                     ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Tumaini Raphael Luvena,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A096 031 066
                      ______________________________

   Before Davis, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Tumaini Raphael Luvena, a native and citizen of Tanzania, petitions
   for review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of her
   appeal from the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal
   (WOR), protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and
   cancellation of removal. Because Luvena has failed to contest the BIA’s

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60229       Document: 00516635684          Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/06/2023

                                     No. 22-60229

   rejection of her asylum claim as waived, she has abandoned any challenge to
   the denial of asylum. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.
   2003).
            To be eligible for WOR, an applicant must demonstrate a clear
   probability of persecution due to, as pertinent here, her membership in a
   particular social group (PSG). Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir.
   2004). In denying her WOR claim, the BIA concluded that Luvena’s
   proposed PSG of “females in Tanzania forced to live as concubines of older
   men” is not cognizable because the group is not socially distinct and is fatally
   circular because it is defined by the harm claimed. We have held that a PSG
   must be “sufficiently particularized and socially distinct without reference to
   the very persecution from which its members flee.” Jaco v. Garland, 24
   F.4th 395, 407 (5th Cir. 2021); see Gonzalez-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 232
   (5th Cir. 2019) (rejecting a proposed PSG of “Honduran women unable to
   leave their relationship” as “impermissibly defined in a circular manner”
   because it was “defined by, and d[id] not exist independently of, the harm”).
   Here, Luvena fails even to reference the BIA’s finding that her proposed PSG
   is impermissibly circular, thereby abandoning any challenge to that critical
   determination. See Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833. Accordingly, Luvena has failed
   to present compelling evidence that no reasonable factfinder could reject her
   proposed PSG as non-cognizable. See Jaco, 24 F.4th at 401, 407.
            A CAT applicant must show that “it is more likely than not that [s]he
   would be tortured” in the country of removal “by or at the instigation of or
   with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in
   an official capacity.” Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2005)
   (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Where, as here, the alleged
   torturer is a private citizen rather than the government, acquiescence
   requires proof of willful blindness, i.e., that “an official [is] aware of the

                                          2
Case: 22-60229        Document: 00516635684          Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/06/2023

                                      No. 22-60229

   torture and take[s] no action to protect the victim.” Martinez-Lopez v. Barr,
   943 F.3d 766, 772 (5th Cir. 2019).
             The agency found that Luvena failed to show that the Tanzanian
   government would acquiesce to her private-party oppression; because
   Luvena admittedly failed to report her abuse to the police, the agency
   characterized as merely speculative her testimony that the police would not
   have helped her. Now, Luvena argues that the widespread exploitation and
   abuse of women in Tanzania shows that the government is either compliant
   with gender persecution or too inept to stop it; however, she does not cite
   any supporting evidence in the record. Ultimately, while her “general
   allegations” about the unwillingness of Tanzanian police to investigate crime
   “may weigh against the [agency’s] conclusion,” they do not “compel the
   opposite conclusion.” Id. at 773 (internal quotation marks, italics, and
   citation omitted). Luvena’s challenge to the agency’s rejection of her CAT
   claim thus fails under the substantial evidence standard. See Zhang, 432 F.3d
   at 344.
             Finally, to be eligible for cancellation of removal, an applicant must
   show, in part, that her removal would result in “exceptional and extremely
   unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative who is a citizen or lawful
   permanent resident of the United States.           8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).
   Luvena challenges the BIA’s finding of insufficient hardship to support relief.
   Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), we lack jurisdiction to review the
   hardship determination underlying the denial of cancellation of removal, and
   the underlying hardship determination is likewise “beyond our review.”
   Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022).
             In light of the foregoing, the petition for review is DISMISSED in
   part and DENIED in part.

                                            3