Court Opinion

ID: 9556387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 00:00:34.368328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:20.662288
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60085        Document: 00516860678             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/16/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-60085
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                August 16, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Jhennyfer Sandrely Hernandez-Vega,                                                 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 028 048
                     ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jhennyfer Sandrely Hernandez-Vega, a native and citizen of
   Honduras, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
   Appeals (BIA) upholding the 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: 23-60085      Document: 00516860678          Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                    No. 23-60085

          We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s
   decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. See Shaikh v. Holder, 588
   F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). The BIA’s factual determination that an
   individual is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief is
   reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d
   1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under that standard, the petitioner has the burden
   of showing “that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder
   could reach a contrary conclusion.” Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485,
   489 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
   Hernandez-Vega failed to demonstrate the requisite nexus between the harm
   she claimed and her membership in the proposed particular social group of
   the “Hernandez-Vega family.” The evidence showed that the gang robbed
   or otherwise victimized many people besides Hernandez-Vega’s family, and
   there was no evidence that the gang expressed any animus particular to her
   family. See Ramirez-Mejia, 794 F.3d at 492-93. “Threats or attacks motivated
   by criminal intentions do not provide a basis for protection.” Vazquez-Guerra
   v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 270 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228
   (2022). The conclusion is also supported by the evidence that many members
   of her family continue to live in Honduras without being specifically targeted
   by the gang. See Ramirez-Mejia, 794 F.3d at 493.
          Regarding a well-founded fear of persecution, Hernandez-Vega
   claimed that she feared returning to Honduras due to the danger of gangs
   everywhere and the ineffectiveness or corruption of the police. She has failed
   to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, however, because she has not
   demonstrated that the gangs are motivated to harm her based on a protected
   ground. See Tabora Gutierrez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 496, 500 (5th Cir. 2021).
   “[A] fear of general violence and civil disorder is not sufficient to support a
   fear of future persecution.” Munoz-Granados, 958 F.3d at 408. Because she

                                         2
Case: 23-60085        Document: 00516860678         Page: 3     Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                     No. 23-60085

   has failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she has also failed to satisfy her
   burden for withholding of removal. See id.
          Substantial evidence also supports the denial of requested CAT relief.
   Hernandez-Vega was not harmed while she remained in Honduras for about
   six months after the robbery at her home, and several family members
   continued to live in Honduras unharmed. The evidence does not compel the
   conclusion that she more likely than not would be tortured if removed to
   Honduras. See Ramirez-Mejia, 794 F.3d at 493-94.
          Lastly, Hernandez-Vega contends that her case should have been
   dismissed because her notice to appear did not include the hearing date and
   time. As the BIA determined, however, our precedent forecloses the
   argument. See Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 480 (5th Cir.
   2022). Federal regulations “govern what a notice to appear must contain to
   constitute a valid charging document.” Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 242
   (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Under the
   regulations, a notice to appear “is sufficient to commence proceedings even
   if it does not include the time, date, or place of the initial hearing.” Id.
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Furthermore, Hernandez-
   Vega filed her motion to terminate the proceedings only after she had already
   conceded removability under the notice to appear. The BIA did not err in
   concluding that she failed to timely object that the notice to appear violated
   a claim-processing rule. See Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 693 & n.6 (5th
   Cir. 2019), abrogated in part on other grounds by Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S.
   Ct. 1474 (2021).
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                           3