Court Opinion

ID: 9402548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 00:01:03.08596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:00.659872
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60675        Document: 00516788877             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/15/2023

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

                                                                                       FILED
                                      No. 22-60675                                   June 15, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   Heidy Guillermina Munoz,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A206 873 970
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Heidy Guillermina Munoz Portales (Munoz) petitions for review of
   the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her
   appeal. Munoz argues that she was entitled to asylum, withholding of
   removal, and relief via the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60675     Document: 00516788877           Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/15/2023

                                    No. 22-60675

          This court applies the substantial evidence standard to the
   “conclusion that an alien is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal,
   and relief under the Convention Against Torture.” Zhang v. Gonzales, 432
   F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
   “To succeed on an application for asylum, an applicant must show that she
   is unable or unwilling to return to and avail herself of the protection of her
   home country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution
   on account of race, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
   political opinion.” Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 401 (5th Cir. 2021)
   (internal quotations, brackets, and ellipses omitted). Munoz argues that she
   was a member of a particular social group in the form of Honduran business
   owners susceptible to extortion. However, we have rejected similar proposed
   particular social groups based on economic extortion. See Garcia v. Holder,
   756 F.3d 885, 890 (5th Cir. 2014). Thus, Munoz has failed to show any error
   in the denial of her asylum claim. Having failed to satisfy the standard for
   asylum, she cannot meet the “higher standard” for withholding of removal.
   See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
          Munoz also argues that she is entitled to relief under the CAT,
   pointing to evidence of generalized police corruption and gang violence and
   the failure of police to investigate her brother’s shooting successfully. The
   BIA concluded that Munoz did not make the requisite showing. Munoz has
   failed to point to any evidence in the record that compels a contrary
   conclusion. See, e.g., Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 228-29 (5th
   Cir. 2019); see also Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1142 (5th Cir. 2006).
   Therefore, her CAT claim fails as well.
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                             2