Court Opinion

ID: 9904844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 01:00:40.853411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:32.150728
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60229        Document: 00516979880             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/27/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit

                                     ____________                                FILED
                                                                        November 27, 2023
                                      No. 23-60229
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                             Clerk
                                    ____________

   Evelin Yolinda Suazo Soler,

                                                                                  Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A208 300 904
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Evelin Yolinda Suazo Soler, a native and citizen of Honduras,
   petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) upholding
   the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
   protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In reviewing the
   BIA’s decision, we consider the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision only to the

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60229     Document: 00516979880           Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/27/2023

                                    No. 23-60229

   extent it influenced the BIA. E.g., Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th
   Cir. 2009).
          Our court reviews the BIA’s factual determination that an individual
   is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief under the
   substantial evidence standard. E.g., Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134
   (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, reversal is proper only if the evidence
   not only supports a contrary conclusion but compels it. E.g., Zhao v.
   Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005). Petitioner has the burden of
   showing “the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could
   conclude against it”. Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 268 (5th Cir.
   2021) (citation omitted).
          To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must show, inter alia, “race,
   religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
   opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the
   applicant”. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); accord Orellana-Monson v. Holder,
   685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). (The protected ground of political opinion
   is not considered because Soler did not assert it before the IJ. E.g., Santos-
   Alvarado v. Barr, 967 F.3d 428, 440 n.13 (5th Cir. 2020) (upholding BIA’s
   authority not to consider assertions not advanced before IJ).)
          The protected ground for claiming asylum in this instance is
   particular-social-group membership. The evidence does not compel the
   conclusion that Soler’s membership in the operative particular social group,
   “landowner”, was a central reason for the harm she has or will experience
   from the alleged persecutor, Bandos Los Espinoza. The evidence shows
   instead Bandos Los Espinoza engaged in generalized criminal activity against
   the community at large to obtain money and valuables. See, e.g., Vazquez-
   Guerra, 7 F.4th at 270 (“Threats or attacks motivated by criminal intentions
   do not provide a basis for protection.”).

                                         2
Case: 23-60229       Document: 00516979880            Page: 3     Date Filed: 11/27/2023

                                       No. 23-60229

          Neither does the evidence compel reversal of the BIA’s withholding-
   of-removal decision. “The standard for obtaining withholding of removal is
   even higher than the standard for asylum, requiring a showing that it is more
   likely than not that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened by
   persecution on one of the protected grounds.” Id. at 271 (citation omitted);
   see Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 904 (5th Cir. 2002) (listing protected
   grounds as those in 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)). Because Soler fails to
   establish eligibility for asylum, she also fails to satisfy her burden for
   withholding of removal. E.g., Vazquez-Guerra, 7 F.4th at 271 (“An applicant
   who fails to establish eligibility for asylum also fails to establish eligibility for
   withholding of removal.”).
          To obtain protection under the CAT, the applicant must demonstrate:
   it is more likely than not she will be tortured upon return to her homeland;
   and sufficient state action will be involved in the torture. E.g., Tamara-Gomez
   v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 350–51 (5th Cir. 2006). Soler’s testimony showed
   the Honduran government sent police forces to her municipality in an
   attempt to control Bandos Los Espinoza. She testified the government did
   not send enough police, and Bandos Los Espinoza killed at least six officers
   between 2012 and 2015. Given the Honduran government’s efforts, the
   evidence does not compel the conclusion that any torture of Soler by Bandos
   Los Espinoza would involve the requisite state action or acquiescence. See
   Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 229 (5th Cir. 2019) (“[A]
   government’s inability to protect its citizens does not amount to
   acquiescence.” (citation omitted)).
          DENIED.

                                             3