Court Opinion

ID: 9838964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-09 00:00:33.289657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:00.133724
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60647        Document: 00516889145             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/08/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-60647
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                              September 8, 2023
                                    ____________
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   Maria Del Carmen Contreras-Gomez; Marla Velasquez-
   Contreras,

                                                                               Petitioners,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                      Agency Nos. A209 840 287, A209 840 288
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Maria del Carmen Contreras-Gomez and her minor daughter, Marla
   Naomi Velasquez-Contreras, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for
   review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing
   an appeal from a denial by the immigration judge (“IJ”) of Contreras-
   Gomez’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60647        Document: 00516889145              Page: 2       Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                         No. 22-60647

   Convention against Torture (“CAT”). 1 We review denials of asylum,
   withholding, and CAT claims for substantial evidence. Chen v. Gonzales, 470
   F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, we may not disturb the
   BIA’s decision unless the evidence “compels” a contrary conclusion.
   Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted). We consider the decision of the IJ
   only insofar as it influences the BIA’s decision. Id.
           To establish eligibility for asylum, Contreras-Gomez must prove that
   she is unable or unwilling to return to El Salvador “because of persecution or
   a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,
   membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Sharma v.
   Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C. §
   1101(a)(42)(A)).
           Contreras-Gomez devotes most of her brief to arguments that she
   experienced persecution, that she has a well-founded fear of future
   persecution, and that she is a member of a particular “gender-based social
   group within the specific context of Salvadoran society.” As well, Contreras-
   Gomez contends that the vacatur of Matter of A-B-, 21 I & N Dec. 316 (U.S.
   Att’y Gen. 2018) (A-B- I), by Matter of A-B-, 28 I & N Dec. 307 (U.S. Att’y
   Gen. 2021) (A-B- III), requires remand to the IJ for consideration of her
   particular social group, although the BIA specifically did not rely on the IJ’s
   reasoning under A-B- I in affirming the IJ’s decision. As to nexus, on which
   the BIA based its decision, Contreras-Gomez incorrectly asserts that she has
   established a particular social group and thus a nexus between the harm, past
   and feared, and a protected ground. As well, she observes, without briefing

           _____________________
           1
             Because Contreras-Gomez’s minor daughter is a rider on and derivative
   beneficiary of her mother’s application for relief, we refer herein only to Contreras-Gomez.

                                                    2
Case: 22-60647      Document: 00516889145          Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                    No. 22-60647

   any argument on the point, that, to show a nexus, she must only show that a
   protected ground is “at least one central reason.”         § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i);
   Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518.
          Her conclusory assertions are insufficient to compel a result different
   than the BIA’s determination that she failed to establish the requisite nexus
   between the harm and a protected ground. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see Vazquez-
   Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 270 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct.
   1228 (2022); Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. Contreras-Gomez’s contentions
   regarding the elements of her asylum claim other than nexus likewise do not
   compel the conclusion that her membership in her newly asserted and
   vaguely defined “gender-based social group within the specific context of
   Salvadoran society” was a central reason for the harm she experienced.
   See § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Vazquez-Guerra, 7 F.4th at 270.
          Because a nexus between the harm and a protected ground is an
   essential element of asylum and withholding claims, see Vazquez-Guerra,
   7 F.4th at 269, we do not consider Contreras-Gomez’s remaining arguments
   as to the other elements of an asylum claim. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S.
   24, 25 (1976). Because Contreras-Gomez failed to establish eligibility for
   asylum, she necessarily also cannot meet the requirements for withholding of
   removal. See Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 401 (5th Cir. 2021); Orellana-
   Monson, 685 F.3d at 518.
          In addition, substantial evidence, including the exhibits upon which
   Contreras-Gomez relies, supports the agency’s conclusion that Contreras-
   Gomez failed to show that the Government of El Salvador participated in or
   acquiesced to the gang’s criminal activities, or would do so in the future were
   Contreras-Gomez returned to El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1);
   Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 772–73 (5th Cir. 2019); Martinez
   Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 228 (5th Cir. 2019); Qorane v. Barr, 919

                                             3
Case: 22-60647     Document: 00516889145          Page: 4   Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                   No. 22-60647

   F.3d 904, 911 (5th Cir. 2019). Contreras-Gomez has thus also failed to make
   the required showing for relief under the CAT. See § 1208.18(a)(1); Martinez
   Manzanares, 925 F.3d at 228.
         The petition for review is DENIED.

                                            4