Court Opinion

ID: 9890964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 00:00:31.091558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:20.210171
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60149        Document: 00516932231             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023

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

                                     ____________                              FILED
                                                                         October 16, 2023
                                      No. 23-60149                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                           Clerk
                                    ____________

   Bernardina Suar Ticum,

                                                                                   Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A216 383 277
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Bernardina Suar Ticum, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
   for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA),
   dismissing her appeal and affirming the denial by the immigration judge (IJ)
   of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
   Against Torture (CAT).

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60149       Document: 00516932231            Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/16/2023

                                       No. 23-60149

            This court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s decision
   only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d
   511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). By adopting the IJ’s decision and citing to Matter of
   Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), the BIA effectively preserved
   the IJ’s decision for review. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.
   1997).
            The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and
   its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 517.
   The substantial evidence test “requires only that the BIA’s decision be
   supported by record evidence and be substantially reasonable.” Omagah v.
   Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2002). This court will not reverse the
   BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.
   Chen v. Gonzalez, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
            As an initial matter, Suar Ticum argues that because her Notice to
   Appear (NTA) lacked the date and time of her removal hearing, jurisdiction
   never vested with the immigration court. This court held in Pierre-Paul v.
   Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 691–93 (5th Cir. 2019), that a defect in an NTA does not
   deprive an immigration court of jurisdiction over removal proceedings.
   Though the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct.
   1474 (2021), abrogated Pierre-Paul in part, we have since confirmed that the
   jurisdictional holding from Pierre-Paul remains “the law of [this] circuit,”
   even after Niz-Chavez. Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 242 & n.2 (5th Cir.
   2021).     Thus, there is no merit to Suar Ticum’s contention that the
   immigration court lacked jurisdiction over her removal proceedings.
   See Pierre-Paul, 930 F.3d at 693.
            Suar Ticum next argues that the three threats she received from her
   brother’s ex-girlfriend in Guatemala are sufficient to show past persecution.
   This court has observed that “[p]ersecution is often described in the

                                            2
Case: 23-60149       Document: 00516932231             Page: 3      Date Filed: 10/16/2023

                                        No. 23-60149

   negative: It is not harassment, intimidation, threats, or even assault.” Gjetani
   v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2020). Similarly, it “does not encompass
   all treatment that our society regards as unfair, unjust, or even unlawful or
   unconstitutional.” Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As such, the BIA reasonably
   found that the three threats Suar Ticum received did not rise to the level of
   persecution. See Omagah, 288 F.3d at 258.
          Additionally, Suar Ticum argues that the BIA erred in finding that the
   harm she suffered and feared in Guatemala did not have the requisite nexus
   to a protected ground. Though Suar Ticum contends that her family
   relationship, particularly her relationship to her brother Carlos, was one
   central reason for the harm she suffered, the record does not support her
   contention.1
          Suar Ticum testified that her brother’s ex-girlfriend targeted her
   because she was angry at Carlos for ending their romantic relationship and
   wanted revenge, not because of any animus towards Suar Ticum’s family.
   Given that Suar Ticum has shown only personal motives behind the threats
   she experienced in Guatemala, the BIA did not err in finding that she had
   failed to show the requisite nexus between the alleged persecution and a
   protected ground. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004).

          _____________________
          1
           Suar Ticum states elsewhere in her brief that she was persecuted and has a well-
   founded fear of future persecution based on her religion and her membership in several
   other PSGs. Suar Ticum has failed to brief these issues adequately for review and has
   abandoned them. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

                                              3
Case: 23-60149      Document: 00516932231          Page: 4    Date Filed: 10/16/2023

                                    No. 23-60149

          Finally, Suar Ticum argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s
   denial of CAT relief because her credible testimony and the country
   conditions evidence supports the finding that it is more likely than not that
   she will be tortured if removed to Guatemala.
          Before the IJ, Suar Ticum testified that she did not report her
   brother’s ex-girlfriend’s threats to the police because the police “don’t do
   anything,” and she did not want to put her family in danger. She asserted
   that in her hometown in Guatemala, the police routinely released criminals
   from jail after “two or three days,” even individuals accused of murder.
   Based on her experiences in Guatemala, Suar Ticum testified that she did not
   believe that the police could protect her from her brother’s ex-girlfriend, who
   had threatened to kill her.
          Though the country conditions evidence describes instances of police
   corruption and abuse of authority, on balance, it does not compel the
   conclusion that Suar Ticum would “more likely than not” be tortured if
   removed to Guatemala. See Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 415 (5th Cir.
   2006); see also Chen, 470 F.3d 1142 (explaining that “[t]he government’s
   inability to provide ‘complete security’ to the petitioner from [private actors]
   did not rise to the level of state action” required under the CAT). As such,
   the BIA did not err in adopting the IJ’s finding that Suar Ticum had failed to
   show that she was eligible for relief under the CAT.
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                          4