Court Opinion

ID: 9642520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:01:20.215668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:52:47.928928
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60477        Document: 00516866852             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/22/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                August 22, 2023
                                      No. 22-60477
                                    Summary Calendar                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                      Clerk

   Evelyn Yessenia Ordonez Rojas; Evelyn Sarahi Anariba
   Ordonez,

                                                                               Petitioners,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                      Agency Nos. A208 764 506, A208 764 507
                     ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges:
   Per Curiam: *
         Evelyn Yessenia Ordonez Rojas and her minor daughter, natives and
   citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the decision by the Board of
   Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of their application for
   asylum and withholding of removal. We DENY the petition.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60477      Document: 00516866852           Page: 2     Date Filed: 08/22/2023

                                     No. 22-60477

          We review the BIA’s decision, and we and consider the immigration
   judge’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions,
   880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). We review factual findings for substantial
   evidence, and we review legal determinations de novo. Lopez-Gomez v.
   Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001).
          Ordonez Rojas first argues that the immigration court lacked
   jurisdiction to order her removed because her notice to appear failed to
   specify the date, time, and location of her removal hearing. Circuit precedent
   forecloses this argument. Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 480
   (5th Cir. 2022); Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 242 (5th Cir. 2021)
   (holding that a notice to appear “is sufficient to commence proceedings even
   if it does not include the time, date, or place of the initial hearing”) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted)). Accordingly, the BIA did not err in
   determining that jurisdiction properly vested in the immigration court.
          Next, Ordonez Rojas argues that the notice to appear is defective
   because the charge is inconsistent with the allegations. Specifically, she
   argues that she cannot be removed for attempting to enter the United States
   without valid entry documents when she never presented herself for
   admission to begin with. But she did not raise this argument to the BIA. “A
   court may review a final order of removal only if . . . (1) the alien has
   exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right . . . .”
   8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Because Ordonez Rojas did not raise this issue to the
   BIA, it is unexhausted, and we decline to address it. See id.; Fort Bend Cnty.
   v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843, 1844 (2019) (“A claim-processing rule requiring
   parties to take certain procedural steps in, or prior to, litigation, may be
   mandatory in the sense that a court must enforce the rule if timely raised.”
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

                                               2
Case: 22-60477      Document: 00516866852          Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/22/2023

                                    No. 22-60477

          Ordonez Rojas next argues that she demonstrated a nexus between her
   asserted harm and a protected basis under the immigration laws. To establish
   eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal, an applicant must prove that
   she is unwilling or unable to return to her home country because of persecution
   on account of her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
   group, or political opinion. See Cantarero-Lagos v. Barr, 924 F.3d 145, 150
   (5th Cir. 2019); Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013).
   “[A]lthough a statutorily protected ground need not be the only reason for
   harm, it cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to
   another reason for harm.” Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 153, 159 (5th Cir.
   2018) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted).
          Ordonez Rojas claims that she “was persecuted because she, an
   unprotected single mother, stood up to a gang and refused to pay the amount
   demanded.” But economic extortion is not a cognizable form of persecution
   under immigration law. See Singh v. Barr, 920 F.3d 255, 259 (5th Cir. 2019).
   Substantial evidence therefore supports the BIA’s determination that
   Ordonez Rojas failed to demonstrate a nexus between any suffered harm and
   a protected ground. Because Ordonez Rojas has not established the requisite
   nexus, we need not address her arguments related to past persecution. See
   INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (“As a general rule
   courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision
   of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
          Finally, although Ordonez Rojas mentions the BIA’s denial of her
   claim under the Convention Against Torture, this argument is not adequately
   briefed, and we deem it abandoned. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830,
   833 (5th Cir. 2003). The petition for review is DENIED.

                                              3