Court Opinion

ID: 9951421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-16 00:00:44.869142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:40:08.373057
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60343           Document: 63-1        Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/15/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                           United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit
                                   No. 23-60343
                                 Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                 ____________                                March 15, 2024
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
Napolion Adolfo Quijada-Jimenez,                                                  Clerk

                                                                             Petitioner,

                                         versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                           Respondent.
                  ______________________________

                     Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A202 072 014
                  ______________________________

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Napolion Adolfo Quijada-Jimenez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
upholding the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. We review the BIA’s

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60343        Document: 63-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                                 No. 23-60343

decision and consider the immigration judge’s decision only to the extent it
influenced the BIA. Singh v. Barr, 920 F.3d 255, 258-59 (5th Cir. 2019).
       In applying for asylum and withholding of removal, Quijada-Jimenez
claimed persecution by a gang on account of the protected ground of
membership in a particular social group. The BIA did not err in determining
that his proposed PSG of “Witnesses of crime in El Salvador who cooperate
with law enforcement” lacked social distinction and therefore was not
cognizable. Whether a proposed PSG is socially distinct is evaluated based
on the perception of the society in question as a whole, rather than the
perception of the alleged persecutor. Garcia-Gonzalez v. Garland, 76 F.4th
455, 462 (5th Cir. 2023). The evidence does not compel the conclusion that
Quijada-Jimenez’s proposed group is perceived by Salvadoran society
substantially differently than the general population who resists the gang or
otherwise threatens the gang’s interests. See Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch,
819 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 2016).
       As relevant to his other proposed PSG of “Current and/or formerly
known Bus Drivers in El Salvador,” the BIA determined that Quijada-
Jimenez’s fear of persecution in El Salvador was not objectively reasonable,
given his testimony that he would not work as a bus driver in El Salvador
again. Quijada-Jimenez’s arguments about his risks of future persecution by
the gang due to his status as a former bus driver fail to show that the evidence
compels a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination. See Singh, 920
F.3d at 259-60. The BIA did not err in upholding the denial of asylum and
withholding of removal based on such a conclusion.              See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A); Singh, 920 F.3d at 259.
       To obtain protection under the Convention Against Torture, Quijada-
Jimenez was required to show both that (1) he more likely than not would
suffer torture in El Salvador and (2) sufficient state action would be involved

                                       2
Case: 23-60343       Document: 63-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                                 No. 23-60343

in that torture. See Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 228 (5th Cir.
2019). We agree with the Government that Quijada-Jimenez’s current
argument on the issue of state involvement in torture was not exhausted
before the BIA.     See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).      Even if the exhaustion
requirement were met, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that he failed to show the requisite state involvement in
torture.   See Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017)
(determining that generalized content of articles and reports failed to show
that sufficient state action would be involved in any torture of the applicant
specifically); Martinez Manzanares, 925 F.3d at 229 (recognizing that the
inability of a government to protect its citizens does not amount to
acquiescence for purposes of the Convention Against Torture).
       While Quijada-Jimenez also argues that the BIA failed to meaningfully
consider his appeal, the BIA’s decision reflects adequate reasoning and
consideration of the relevant substantial evidence. See Ghotra v. Whitaker,
912 F.3d 284, 290 (5th Cir. 2019). The issues decided by the BIA resolved
Quijada-Jimenez’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture, and the BIA was not required to
address additional issues. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
       The petition for review is DENIED.

                                      3