Court Opinion

ID: 9910150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 21:00:45.359043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:51:08.139331
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 _______________

                                      No. 23-1693
                                    _______________

                               JESUS MUNOZ-MACEDA,
                                          Petitioner

                                             v.

          ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                          _______________

                      On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                                   (No. A209-308-370)
                        Immigration Judge: Rosalind K. Malloy
                                    _______________

                      Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                                on December 14, 2023

                 Before: BIBAS, PORTER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges

                               (Filed: December 14, 2023)
                                    _______________

                                       OPINION*
                                    _______________
PORTER, Circuit Judge.

       Jesus Munoz-Maceda is a Mexican citizen who entered the United States illegally.

The government placed him into removal proceedings after he was convicted of driving

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding
precedent.
under the influence. He conceded removability, but applied for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because he fears

persecution upon returning to Mexico. An immigration judge denied his applications and

ordered his removal to Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.

Munoz-Maceda now petitions for our review. His opening brief does not challenge the

denial of his application for CAT protection, so only his applications for asylum and

withholding of removal are properly raised. See Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am. v. Foster

Wheeler Energy Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir. 1994) (“An issue is waived unless a

party raises it in its opening brief[.]”).

       To qualify for asylum and withholding of removal, Munoz-Maceda must show a

nexus between the persecution he fears and a “protected ground”—race, religion,

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Asylum is

permitted only for aliens who are refugees. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). And “refugee” is

defined as an alien who fears persecution “on account of” a protected ground. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(42)(A). Similarly, withholding of removal is permitted only where an “alien’s

life or freedom would be threatened . . . because of” a protected ground. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231(b)(3)(A). Thus, for both asylum and withholding of removal, Munoz-Maceda

must show that a protected ground will be “one central reason” for the persecution he

fears. Gonzalez-Posadas v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 781 F.3d 677, 685 n.6 (3d Cir. 2015).

       Munoz-Maceda alleges that he will face persecution in Mexico because organized

criminals will extort him. Before the BIA, Munoz-Maceda argued that he would face this

persecution on account of his political opinions. But the BIA found no evidence to

                                             2
support this nexus. Munoz-Maceda previously had testified that he would face

persecution only because of his perceived wealth. And the BIA noted that where

persecution is “motivated by a bare desire for money,” the nexus requirement is not

satisfied. Shehu v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 482 F.3d 652, 657 (3d Cir. 2007).

       We have jurisdiction over this petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review the

BIA’s nexus determination for substantial evidence, because it is a question of fact.

Thayalan v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 997 F.3d 132, 138 (3d Cir. 2021). Munoz-Maceda “must

show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder

could fail to find the requisite” nexus. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483–84

(1992).

       We hold that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that there is

no nexus between the persecution Munoz-Maceda fears and any protected ground.

Munoz-Maceda consistently testified that he would face persecution only for money. See

A.R. 127 (“[Criminals] will think that we will carry a lot of money because we were in

the United States.”); A.R. 131–32 (affirming that “the only” reasons he fears physical

harm are his perceived wealth and failure to pay extortion money); A.R. 135 (“[I]f I do

not give money, they will harm somebody from my family or myself.”). He did not

testify that he feared persecution on account of his political opinions, nor for any ground

other than money. And “an alien targeted out of a simple desire for money has not

experienced persecution on account of a [protected] ground . . . .” Thayalan, 997 F.3d at

144.

                                             3
       Munoz-Maceda argues that resistance to extortion is political expression because

organized criminals control the Mexican government. But even if this is true, it does not

compel the conclusion that Munoz-Maceda faces harm because of political expression.

He testified that he will be harmed if he fails to pay extortion money. But he did not

testify that criminals will perceive his resistance to extortion as political expression, nor

that they will harm him because they perceive his resistance as politically motivated.

Instead, his testimony supports the conclusion that criminals will harm him, if at all,

because they want money.

       Finally, Munoz-Maceda challenges the BIA’s decision because the Immigration

Judge cited to Matter of A-B- I, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (AG 2018), which was later vacated.

But this is irrelevant. The BIA’s nexus determination is dispositive of the denial of

Munoz-Maceda’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal, and A-B- I was

not required for that determination.

       Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s nexus determination, we will

deny the petition for review.

                                              4