Court Opinion

ID: 9369198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 01:00:22.418633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:13.475691
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60126         Document: 00516637989             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/07/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-60126
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                               February 7, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Luz Marina Garcia-Romero,                                                          Clerk

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A206 710 266
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Luz Marina Garcia-Romero, a native and citizen of Honduras,
   petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA),
   dismissing her appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial 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: 22-60126        Document: 00516637989           Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/07/2023

                                       No. 22-60126

             On review of an order of the BIA, this court examines “the BIA’s
   decision and only consider[s] the IJ’s decision to the extent that it influenced
   the BIA.” Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). Because the
   BIA agreed with the IJ’s analysis and conclusions, we review both decisions.
   See id.
             This court reviews the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence,
   and it will not reverse such findings unless the petitioner shows that “the
   evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude
   against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536-37 (quote at 537) (5th Cir.
   2009). Among the findings that this court reviews for substantial evidence is
   the factual conclusion that an alien is not eligible for asylum, withholding of
   removal, or CAT protection. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir.
   2005).
             Garcia-Romero contends that the factors of Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N.
   Dec. 526, 532-34 (BIA 2011), support the finding that she established the
   requisite nexus between the persecution she experienced or fears in
   Honduras and her political opinion, but this is simply an argument that the
   BIA should have weighed the evidence differently, which is insufficient to
   reverse the BIA’s decision. As this court has explained, “the possibility of
   drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not preclude
   an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial
   evidence.” Revencu v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 396, 401 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal
   quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted).
             Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s findings that Garcia-
   Romero failed to show that her abusive father was motivated by or even aware
   of her feminist political opinion or that he attributed such an opinion to her.
   See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536. The BIA reasonably found that Garcia-Romero’s
   father abused her and her siblings “for personal reasons peculiar to himself

                                            2
Case: 22-60126     Document: 00516637989           Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/07/2023

                                    No. 22-60126

   and the family,” namely that he was a violent person who was obsessed with
   Garcia-Romero’s mother and wanted to make her suffer. See id. at 537. This
   court has upheld the denial of asylum where the applicant demonstrated
   “purely personal” motives. Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir.
   2004). Thus, the BIA did not err in rejecting Garcia-Romero’s challenge to
   the determination that she was not entitled to asylum or withholding of re-
   moval for failure to show the required nexus between the alleged persecution
   and a protected ground. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344; Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d
   899, 906 (5th Cir. 2004).
          Garcia-Romero next argues that the BIA erred in finding that she did
   not have a well-founded fear of future persecution because she could
   reasonably relocate within Honduras to avoid harm. See Eduard v. Ashcroft,
   379 F.3d 182, 194 (5th Cir. 2004). Though she acknowledges that she was
   able to live with her mother’s family in another town unharmed for several
   months, she argues that the IJ failed to consider her testimony that she left
   Honduras because she feared that she would not be able to continue to live
   there safely after hearing rumors that her father was looking for her.
          Contrary to Garcia-Romero’s argument, however, the record
   confirms that the IJ considered this testimony. The BIA also expressly
   addressed this testimony in affirming the IJ’s findings related to internal
   relocation. Accordingly, the record does not compel the reversal of the BIA’s
   determination that Garcia-Romero had failed to show that it would be
   unreasonable for her to relocate within Honduras to avoid her father’s abuse.
   See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536-37; Eduard, 379 F.3d at 194.
          Finally, Garcia-Romero argues that the BIA erred in adopting the IJ’s
   denial of CAT protection.       According to Garcia-Romero, her credible
   testimony about the abuse she experienced in Honduras, along with the
   country conditions evidence showing widespread corruption within law

                                         3
Case: 22-60126        Document: 00516637989         Page: 4    Date Filed: 02/07/2023

                                     No. 22-60126

   enforcement and societal violence against women in Honduras, establishes a
   clear probability that she would be tortured if removed to Honduras.

             To receive protection under the CAT, an alien must establish that it
   is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to her home
   country by or with the acquiescence of government officials acting under the
   color of law. Hakim v. Holder, 628 F.3d 151, 155 (5th Cir. 2010). As this court
   has explained, “a government’s inability to protect its citizens does not
   amount to acquiescence.” Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 911 (5th Cir. 2019);
   see Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 351 (5th Cir. 2006) (agreeing
   with other circuits that “neither the failure to apprehend the persons
   threatening the alien, nor the lack of financial resources to eradicate the
   threat or risk of torture constitute sufficient state action for purposes” of the
   CAT). Accordingly, the BIA reasonably found that Garcia-Romero was not
   entitled to CAT protection because she had failed to show that the Honduran
   government would consent or acquiesce to her torture. See Wang, 569 F.3d
   at 537.
             The petition for review is DENIED.

                                           4