Court Opinion

ID: 9964321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 18:00:42.917006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:18.671201
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60225           Document: 89-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/29/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                   No. 23-60225
                                 Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                 ____________                                  April 29, 2024
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
Isaias Arteaga Ibarra,                                                             Clerk

                                                                              Petitioner,

                                         versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                            Respondent.
                  ______________________________

                     Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A216 426 145
                  ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Isaias Arteaga Ibarra (Arteaga), a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) affirming
the denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). Our court reviews the BIA’s decision and also

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60225       Document: 89-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/29/2024

                                 No. 23-60225

considers the decision of the immigration judge (IJ), which was adopted by
the BIA. E.g., Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009).
       Questions of law are reviewed de novo. E.g., Revencu v. Sessions, 895
F.3d 396, 401 (5th Cir. 2018). The BIA’s factual determination that an
individual is not eligible for withholding of removal or CAT relief is reviewed
under the substantial-evidence standard. E.g., id. Under that standard, a
petitioner must show “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable
factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion”. Id. (citation omitted).
       Regarding withholding of removal, the BIA determined that Arteaga
established membership in a cognizable particular social group:              a
transgender woman in the LGBTQ+ community. Arteaga maintains: the
evidence established a pattern or practice of persecution in Mexico against
members of the LGBTQ+ community; the Mexican government is unable or
unwilling to control the persecutors; and internal relocation within Mexico
to avoid future persecution was not reasonable.
       As an initial matter, Arteaga’s assertion that the Government had the
burden on the internal-relocation issue was not exhausted because the
scattered statements in Arteaga’s BIA brief were insufficient to place the BIA
on notice of such an assertion. See Munoz-De Zelaya v. Garland, 80 F.4th
689, 694 (5th Cir. 2023) (“[Petitioners] did not present these arguments to
the BIA”.); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (allowing review only if “the alien has
exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right”).
Because the Government objected to the contention as unexhausted, we do
not consider it here. E.g., Carreon v. Garland, 71 F.4th 247, 257 & n.11 (5th
Cir. 2023) (declining to reach unexhausted issue).
       As the IJ found, the evidence on this issue is “multifaceted”; the
finding that Arteaga failed to sufficiently show why internal relocation would
be unreasonable is supported by substantial evidence. Arteaga’s challenges,

                                      2
Case: 23-60225        Document: 89-1         Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/29/2024

                                  No. 23-60225

at best, show the evidence might support a contrary conclusion. See Revencu,
895 F.3d at 401 (“[T]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions
from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from
being supported by substantial evidence.” (alteration in original) (citation
omitted)). As reflected supra, the substantial-evidence standard is highly
deferential; the evidence does not compel Arteaga’s asserted finding
regarding internal relocation. See id.
       Because the BIA’s determination regarding internal relocation is
supported by substantial evidence and dispositive with respect to
withholding of removal, we need not address Arteaga’s other assertions for
that claim. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“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.”).
       Regarding CAT relief, an applicant must show he or she will more
likely than not suffer torture inflicted or instigated by, or with the consent or
acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
See Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 228 (5th Cir. 2019) (outlining
standard). “Acquiescence by the government includes willful blindness of
torturous activity.” Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 225 (5th Cir. 2019)
(citation omitted).
       Arteaga notes the evidence includes an expert opinion that Arteaga
had “a greater than 50% chance of being physically assaulted, sexually
assaulted, tortured or murdered in Mexico”. As the Government points out,
however, this statement combined forms of torture with harm that does not
necessarily rise to the level of torture, such as minor physical assaults. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2) (“Torture is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman
treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment that do not amount to torture.”). Arteaga also

                                         3
Case: 23-60225       Document: 89-1        Page: 4    Date Filed: 04/29/2024

                                No. 23-60225

maintains that homicides and other violence against transgender individuals
are endemic in Mexico and the Mexican government is involved in or
acquiesces to torture of transgender individuals because the police and
military target transgender women or otherwise are willfully blind to the
torture.
       As with the withholding-of-removal claim, the evidence relating to
protection under the CAT is multifaceted.         Again, reversal under the
substantial-evidence standard is improper unless the evidence not only
supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it. See Revencu, 895 F.3d at 401.
Arteaga has not met that very demanding standard. See id.
       DENIED.

                             Certified as a true copy and issued
                             as the mandate on Apr 29, 2024
                             Attest:
                             Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

                                       4