Court Opinion

ID: 9688688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:00:40.219204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:44.214630
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60176        Document: 00516870471             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/24/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-60176
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                               August 24, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   Jorge Luis Mendoza Martinez,                                                      Clerk

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A205 650 500
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jorge Luis Mendoza Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico,
   petitions for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals
   (BIA) adopting and affirming an order of an immigration judge denying his
   application for 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: 22-60176      Document: 00516870471          Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/24/2023

                                    No. 22-60176

          As a preliminary matter, the IJ held, and the BIA affirmed, that
   Mendoza Martinez was barred from proceeding with his asylum claim
   because the application was untimely and he failed to demonstrate changed
   or extraordinary circumstances excusing the untimely filing. Although
   Mendoza Martinez now argues that the increase in violence by gangs and
   cartels since he left Mexico constitutes changed circumstances excusing the
   untimely filing of his asylum application, we lack jurisdiction to review
   determinations of timeliness that are based on findings of fact. See Zhu v.
   Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594-95 (5th Cir. 2007).
          We review the BIA’s decision 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). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial
   evidence, and legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Lopez-Gomez v.
   Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). Under the substantial evidence
   standard, we may not overturn a factual finding unless the evidence compels
   a contrary result. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d
   766, 769 (5th Cir. 2019).
          On appeal, Mendoza Martinez contends that he was subjected to past
   persecution, he has a well-founded fear of future persecution, he is entitled
   to protection under the CAT, and his circumstances warrant a grant of
   humanitarian asylum.
          First, Mendoza Martinez argues that he suffered persecution because
   he was threatened on two occasions with harm and death by cartel members
   when he opposed their attempted recruitment. In both instances, Mendoza
   Martinez was able to walk away without being harmed. As we have explained,
   such exaggerated, non-specific threats, which were also lacking in
   immediacy, are not enough to demonstrate past persecution. Qorane v. Barr,
   919 F.3d 904, 910 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing Corado v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 945, 947

                                             2
Case: 22-60176      Document: 00516870471            Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/24/2023

                                      No. 22-60176

   (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (explaining that not all alleged death threats
   necessarily amount to persecution, such as “where a factfinder concludes
   that threats are exaggerated, non-specific, or lacking in immediacy”)).
   Accordingly, the evidence does not compel a finding of past persecution. See
   Martinez-Lopez, 943 F.3d at 771.
          Next, to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution, an
   applicant must have a subjective fear of persecution, the fear must be
   objectively reasonable, and the subjective fear must have a nexus to a
   protected ground. Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 153, 159-60 (5th Cir. 2018).
   Here, Mendoza Martinez argues that he demonstrated a clear probability of
   future prosecution based on his country condition evidence and testimony
   that he would be killed if he refused recruitment by a cartel. But this evidence
   reflects a fear of general criminal activity, and “an applicant’s fear of
   persecution cannot be based solely on general violence and civil disorder.” See
   Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 190 (5th Cir. 2004). Moreover, nothing in
   the record indicates that Mendoza Martinez would be targeted on his claimed
   protected ground, his relationship with his father. Thus, the evidence does
   not compel a finding that Mendoza Martinez has a well-founded fear of future
   persecution on account of a protected basis.
          To establish entitlement to relief under the CAT, an alien must prove
   that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured with the consent or
   acquiescence of public officials if he returns to the particular country in
   question. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). The record does not
   compel a finding that Mendoza Martinez made such a showing. See Morales
   v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017).
          Finally, Mendoza Martinez argues that he warrants a grant of
   humanitarian asylum. As the Government notes, however, Mendoza

                                               3
Case: 22-60176        Document: 00516870471              Page: 4       Date Filed: 08/24/2023

                                          No. 22-60176

   Martinez failed to exhaust this challenge to the BIA. We agree that the issue
   is unexhausted and therefore decline to reach it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). 1
           Based upon the foregoing, the petition for review is DISMISSED
   IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

           _____________________
           1
              “Neither the Supreme Court nor our court has decided whether § 1252(d)(1) is a
   mandatory claim-processing rule.” Carreon v. Garland, 71 F.4th 247, 257 n.11 (5th Cir.
   2023); see also Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843, 1849 (2019) (“A claim-processing
   rule may be mandatory in the sense that a court must enforce the rule if a party properly
   raise[s] it.” (alteration in original) (citations and quotations omitted)). However, we need
   not address this question as we would enforce the exhaustion requirement regardless of
   whether § 1252 is a mandatory claims processing rule. See Carreon, 71 F.4th at 257.

                                                    4