Court Opinion

ID: 9393736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 00:00:37.65242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:54.869125
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60344        Document: 00516746112             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/10/2023

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

                                                                                       FILED
                                      No. 22-60344
                                                                                     May 10, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Adalberto Basurto-Lozano,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A209 999 151
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Adalberto Basurto-Lozano, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
   petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing
   his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding
   of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
   He maintains the BIA erred in: finding he was not credible; ruling he failed

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60344        Document: 00516746112        Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/10/2023

                                    No. 22-60344

   to satisfy the nexus requirement; basing its denial of withholding on his failed
   asylum claim; and finding he failed to establish the relevant requirements for
   protection under CAT.
          In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s, to the extent it
   influenced the BIA), legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; factual findings,
   for substantial evidence. E.g., Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–
   18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under the substantial-evidence standard, petitioner must
   demonstrate “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder
   could reach a contrary conclusion”. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134
   (5th Cir. 2006).
          First, Basurto’s challenge regarding the IJ’s adverse credibility
   finding is not properly before this court because the BIA did not rule on it;
   instead, it assumed he was credible and reached the merits of his claims. E.g.,
   Kwon v. INS, 646 F.2d 909, 916 (5th Cir. 1981) (“[W]e are not permitted to
   consider reasons other than those [the BIA] advanced”. (citation omitted)).
          Second, the BIA denied asylum and withholding based on the nexus
   element, without reaching the merits of the cognizability of his proposed
   particular social group of former police officers. E.g., Vazquez-Guerra v.
   Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 269 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022)
   (explaining nexus element requires protected ground be “at least one central
   reason for persecution”, “it cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial, or
   subordinate to another reason for harm” (citations omitted)). Because
   evidence of extortion and threats by gangs due to his status as a former police
   officer is not “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a
   contrary conclusion”, he failed to show that substantial evidence does not
   support the BIA’s conclusion the gangs were financially motivated. Chen,
   470 F.3d at 1134.

                                              2
Case: 22-60344      Document: 00516746112          Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/10/2023

                                    No. 22-60344

          Third, as Basurto acknowledges, his assertion that the nexus standard
   is more relaxed for a withholding claim is foreclosed in this circuit. E.g.,
   Vazquez-Guerra, 7 F.4th at 271 (“Despite [petitioner]’s argument that
   withholding of removal involves a ‘less demanding’ and ‘more relaxed’
   standard than asylum for meeting the nexus requirement, this court has held
   that applicants for withholding of removal must similarly show that a
   protected ground, including membership in a particular social group, was or
   will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” (citation
   omitted)). Accordingly, the BIA did not err in rejecting the asylum and
   withholding claims.
          Finally, Basurto has abandoned his CAT claim because he failed to
   brief adequately that any torture he faced, or would face, would be by, or with
   the acquiescence, of El Salvadoran officials. E.g., Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324
   F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (noting issues not briefed are abandoned);
   Hakim v. Holder, 628 F.3d 151, 155 (5th Cir. 2010) (establishing protection
   under CAT requires alien “demonstrate that, if removed to a country, it is
   more likely than not he would be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of,
   government officials acting under the color of law”).
          DENIED.

                                             3