Court Opinion

ID: 9405718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 00:00:31.283311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:23.899989
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60595        Document: 00516803446             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/28/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                    FILED
                                                                                 June 28, 2023
                                      No. 22-60595
                                    Summary Calendar                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
                                    ____________

   Yonis Del Carmen Rivera-Alvarez; Alis Yasmin Chavez-
   Rivera; Eimy Del Carmen Chavez-Rivera,

                                                                               Petitioners,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                             Agency Nos. A209 238 530,
                             A209 238 531, A209 238 532
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Yonis Del Carmen Rivera-Alvarez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
   entered the United States illegally with her two daughters on July 11, 2016.
   She petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60595        Document: 00516803446              Page: 2      Date Filed: 06/28/2023

                                         No. 22-60595

   (BIA), that dismissed her appeal and affirmed the immigration judge’s (IJ’s)
   denial of her claims for asylum and withholding of removal. 1
            “We generally have authority to review only the decision of the BIA.”
   Gebrgzabher v. Garland, 55 F.4th 996, 1000 (5th Cir. 2022) (internal
   quotations and citation omitted). “But we will consider the IJ’s decision
   when, as here, ‘the IJ’s ruling affects the BIA’s decision.’” Id. (quoting Zhu
   v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007)). “We review the BIA’s and
   IJ’s legal conclusions de novo.” Id. And we review “any factual conclusions,
   including whether an applicant is ineligible for asylum, for substantial
   evidence.” Id. Substantial evidence “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). We will not reverse the BIA’s
   factual findings “unless we decide not only that the evidence supports a
   contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it.” Chen v. Gonzales,
   470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
            Rivera-Alvarez earned a living in El Salvador by selling seafood, and
   later, raffle tickets. But whenever she went to the market to make sales, street
   gangs demanded that she pay them a fee. The street gangs threatened to harm
   her and her family if she did not pay. She fled El Salvador to “to seek refuge
   from the threats and harassment that she experienced at the hands” of these
   gangs.
            In her petition, Rivera-Alvarez argues that the BIA erred by
   determining that “Salvadoran small business vendors” is not cognizable as a
   particular social group. We disagree. “This court does not recognize
   economic extortion as a form of persecution under immigration law.” Garcia

            _____________________
            1
            Because Rivera-Alvarez is the lead petitioner and her daughters’ claims for
   immigration relief are derivative of her claim, this opinion refers only to Rivera-Alvarez.

                                                   2
Case: 22-60595        Document: 00516803446              Page: 3       Date Filed: 06/28/2023

                                         No. 22-60595

   v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885, 890 (5th Cir. 2014); see Mejia v. Lynch, 633 F. App’x
   269, 270 (5th Cir. 2016) (noting that the proposed particular social group of
   “business owners extorted by criminal groups” fails because it “lacks the
   requisite social distinction and particularity to be cognizable”); Penado-
   Hernandez v. Barr, 795 F. App’x 283, 285 (5th Cir. 2020) (“[B]usiness
   owners, wealthy Salvadorans, and persons subject to economic extortion are
   not protected groups.”).
           Even if Rivera-Alvarez’s proposed particular social group were
   cognizable, she must show a nexus between that group and some past or
   feared future persecution. See, e.g., Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341,
   349 (5th Cir. 2002). Here, the agency found that she had not made that
   showing, and the agency relied on that failure to deny her claims. Rivera-
   Alvarez does not challenge that finding in her opening brief. And while she
   does address the nexus requirement in her reply brief, that is not sufficient to
   preserve the issue for review. See Bouchikhi v. Holder, 676 F.3d 173, 179 (5th
   Cir. 2012). Because the BIA’s unchallenged nexus determination is sufficient
   to dispose of Rivera-Alvarez’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal,
   it presents an alternative ground for denial, and we need not address her
   remaining claims.2
           The petition for review is DENIED.

           _____________________
           2
             Rivera-Alvarez also argues that the IJ erred by citing Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N.
   Dec. 316, 316 (U.S. Att’y Gen. 2018) (A-B- I), a decision which has since been vacated. See
   Matter of A-B-, 28 I & N. Dec. 307, 309 (U.S. Att’y Gen. 2021) (A-B- III). But the IJ cited
   A-B- I only to show that “courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues
   the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.” That general proposition is
   good law, even after A-B- III. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).

                                                    3