Court Opinion

ID: 9379226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 00:00:32.835053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.706896
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60279   Document: 00516676296      Page: 1   Date Filed: 03/14/2023

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

                              No. 22-60279
                                                                    FILED
                                                              March 14, 2023
                            Summary Calendar
                            ____________                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                    Clerk
   Santos Adolfo Avalos; Adolfo Avalos-Aviles; Cristian
   Adoris Avalos-Aviles; Grilsleda Carolina Aviles-De
   Avalos; Lucia Anabel Avalos-Aviles,

                                                              Petitioners,

                                  versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                             Respondent.
                 ______________________________

                    Petition for Review of an Order of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals
                  Agency Nos. A209 123 826, A209 123 825,
                  A209 123 827, A209 123 838, A209 123 832
                 ______________________________
Case: 22-60279          Document: 00516676296             Page: 2      Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                           No. 22-60279

   Before Jones, Stewart, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
           Santos Adolfo Avalos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the
   United States illegally with his wife and three children in 2016. 1 He petitions
   for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   dismissing his appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of
   asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
   Against Torture (CAT).
           This court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s decision
   only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d
   511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for
   substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Id. The
   substantial evidence test “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). This court will not reverse the BIA’s factual
   findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Orellana-
   Monson, 685 F.3d at 518. The determination that an alien is not eligible for
   asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief is a factual finding that this
   court reviews for substantial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344
   (5th Cir. 2005).
           Avalos argues that the BIA erred in finding that the harm he suffered
   in El Salvador did not rise to the level of past persecution. 2 He further argues
   that the BIA erred in finding that he failed to show the requisite nexus
           _____________________
           *
               This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
           1
            Avalos’s wife’s name is misspelled in the case caption. The correct spelling is
   Gricelda, as reflected in Avalos’s asylum application and as used throughout the
   immigration proceedings.
           2
            Because Avalos is the lead petitioner and his family member’s claims for
   immigration relief are derivative of his claim, this opinion will hereinafter refer only to
   Avalos unless otherwise specified.

                                                 2
Case: 22-60279         Document: 00516676296               Page: 3      Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                          No. 22-60279

   between the harm he suffered and feared and a protected ground.
   Additionally, he challenges the denial of protection under the CAT. 3
           Avalos testified that during a dispute with one of his employees, the
   employee told him that while he might be the boss in the factory, he was
   “nothing” on the streets. Although it was not explicit, Avalos testified that
   he took the employee’s statement as a death threat. Even if the employee’s
   vague threat that Avalos was “nothing” on the streets could be taken as a
   death threat, this court has held that “threats that are exaggerated, non-
   specific, or lacking in immediacy” will not suffice to show persecution.
   Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 910 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks
   and citation omitted).
           Additionally, Avalos testified that as he was leaving work, he was
   attacked by three MS-13 gang members who kicked him and pushed him over
   a fence. As the IJ observed, however, Avalos “did not suffer any serious or
   long-lasting injuries” from the incident, nor did his testimony reveal “a
   continuing effort” by the gangs to harm him physically. In other words,
   Avalos’s beating by the gang members did not have “the quality of a
   sustained, systematic effort” required to show persecution. 4 Gjetani v. Barr,
   968 F.3d 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2020). As such, the BIA reasonably found that

           _____________________
           3
             Avalos makes several other arguments in his opening brief, including that: he has
   a subjectively and objectively reasonable fear of persecution in El Salvador, his family-based
   particular social group is legally cognizable, the Salvadoran government is unable or
   unwilling to protect him from the gangs, and he cannot reasonably relocate to avoid the
   gangs. While the IJ made findings on some, but not all of these issues, the BIA did not rely
   on any of them in affirming the IJ’s decision. As such, we need not consider Avalos’s
   arguments on these issues. See Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 584 n.3 (5th Cir. 2011).
           4
             Avalos filed the sole asylum application in this case and listed his son as a
   derivative beneficiary. Accordingly, the separate incident where his son was attacked by
   gang members after school, along with any other threats his son received, are not part of
   Avalos’s claim for asylum. See Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 816 (5th Cir. 2017).

                                                 3
Case: 22-60279        Document: 00516676296              Page: 4       Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                         No. 22-60279

   the events that Avalos described in his testimony did not rise to the level of
   past persecution. 5 See Omagah, 288 F.3d at 258.
           Avalos also argues that the BIA erred in finding that the harm he
   suffered and feared in El Salvador did not have the requisite nexus to a
   protected ground. Though Avalos contends that his family relationship,
   particularly his relationship to his son, was one central reason for the harm
   he suffered, the record does not support his contention.
           Avalos testified that the employee threatened him during a work-
   related dispute, not because of any animus towards his family. With respect
   to the attack by the gang, Avalos testified to two possible motives. First, he
   testified that he believed that the gang members had attacked him because he
   had reported the attack against his son to the prosecutor’s office. He added,
   however, that the gang members did not tell him that they were beating him
   because of the report; they told him that they did not recognize him as being
   from the area.
           As the Government argues, the problem with the motivations that
   Avalos provided during his testimony, is that they are not relevant to his
   proposed social group of “family member of Adolfo Josue Avalos Aviles.”
   Accordingly, “substantial evidence does not compel the conclusion that the
   nexus requirement is satisfied” in Avalos’s case. Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland,
   7 F.4th 265, 271 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022).
           Because the BIA’s past persecution and nexus findings are supported
   by substantial evidence, we affirm the BIA’s denial of asylum relief.

           _____________________
           5
             Avalos also argues that the IJ should have granted him humanitarian asylum as a
   matter of discretion. Because Avalos failed to show that he suffered past persecution, he is
   not entitled to humanitarian asylum. See Shehu v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 435, 440-41 (5th Cir.
   2006).

                                                4
Case: 22-60279        Document: 00516676296              Page: 5      Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                         No. 22-60279

   See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344. And because substantial evidence supports the
   denial of Avalos’s asylum claim, it follows that the BIA’s determination that
   he was likewise ineligible for withholding of removal be affirmed. See Majd
   v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006).
           Avalos argues that he faces an “extreme likelihood” of torture and
   death if he is removed to El Salvador, and that the BIA erred in affirming the
   IJ’s denial of CAT relief. 6
           Avalos testified that he fears the gangs and believes that the police in
   El Salvador would not protect him because he had seen the police work with
   the gangs. As this court has recognized, “potential instances of violence
   committed by non-governmental actors against citizens, together with
   speculation that the police might not prevent that violence, are generally
   insufficient to prove government acquiescence, especially if there is evidence
   that the government prosecutes rogue or corrupt public officials.” Garcia v.
   Holder, 756 F.3d 885, 892 (5th Cir. 2014). Avalos’s “speculation that the
   police might not prevent that violence” is therefore insufficient to support
   his CAT claim. Id.
           Moreover, Avalos’s “[g]eneralized country evidence tells us little
   about the likelihood state actors will torture any particular person,” including
   him. Qorane, 919 F.3d at 911. And to the extent that the Salvadoran
   government cannot protect Avalos from the gang violence he fears, “a

           _____________________
           6
              Avalos’s wife and children were potentially eligible for asylum as derivative
   beneficiaries of their father’s application for asylum had he met his burden, but they were
   not eligible for withholding of removal or CAT relief because they did not file separate
   asylum applications. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A) (providing that child of alien granted
   asylum may be granted the same status); see also Matter of A-K-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 275, 279
   (BIA 2007) (explaining that while the Immigration and Nationality Act “provides for
   derivative asylum in certain circumstances, [it] does not permit derivative withholding of
   removal under any circumstances”).

                                               5
Case: 22-60279      Document: 00516676296          Page: 6    Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                    No. 22-60279

   government’s inability to protect its citizens does not amount to
   acquiescence.” Id.
          Finally, Avalos complains that the BIA paid only “token lip service”
   to his CAT claim by addressing it “in a few short words.” While the BIA’s
   analysis was succinct, this court does not require “that the BIA . . . write any
   lengthy exegesis.” Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996).
   Because the BIA’s decision reflects a “meaningful consideration” of
   Avalos’s claim for CAT relief, his argument is without merit. See id.
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                          6