Court Opinion

ID: 9402551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 00:01:09.429556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:00.638795
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60375         Document: 00516789077             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. 22-60375                                June 15, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   Santos Anzures-Lopez,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A078 989 838
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Santos Anzures-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
   review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing
   his appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of cancellation
   of removal, 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: 22-60375        Document: 00516789077              Page: 2      Date Filed: 06/15/2023

                                         No. 22-60375

           Anzures-Lopez argues that the BIA erred in denying his application
   for cancellation of removal based on the finding that he had failed to show
   that his three United States citizen children would suffer exceptional and
   extremely unusual hardship upon his removal to Mexico. He further argues
   that the BIA erred in denying withholding of removal based on the finding
   that he had failed to show the requisite nexus between the harm he suffered
   and feared in Mexico and his membership in a particular social group (PSG).
   Finally, he challenges the BIA’s denial of his request for CAT relief.
           This court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s decision
   only to the extent it influenced the BIA. 1 Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th
   586, 592 (5th Cir. 2021). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for
   substantial evidence and questions of law, including jurisdictional questions
   are reviewed de novo. Id. The substantial evidence test “requires only that
   the BIA’s decision be supported by record evidence and be substantially
   reasonable.” Omagah v. Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2002). We will
   not reverse the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary
   conclusion. Chen v. Gonzalez, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
           Though he acknowledges that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) deprives
   this court of jurisdiction to review the denial of certain types of discretionary
   relief, including cancellation of removal, Anzures-Lopez maintains that the
   BIA’s decision of whether an alien has sufficiently demonstrated exceptional
   and unusual hardship for a qualifying relative requires the application of a
   legal standard to established facts and is therefore reviewable.

           _____________________
           1
              Anzures-Lopez incorrectly states that the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision, citing
   Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994). This is incorrect; the BIA affirmed
   specific findings of the IJ and made its own findings.

                                                   2
Case: 22-60375      Document: 00516789077          Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/15/2023

                                    No. 22-60375

          Anzures-Lopez’s argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent in
   Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022), where we
   held that the hardship determination “is a discretionary and authoritative
   decision” which “is beyond [this court’s] review” under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
   Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider Anzures-Lopez’s challenge to
   the BIA’s hardship determination.
          Anzures-Lopez argues that the BIA erred in denying withholding of
   removal based on the finding that he had failed to show the requisite nexus
   between the harm he suffered and feared in Mexico and his PSG
   membership.
          Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the cartel
   members who attacked Anzures-Lopez were motivated by criminal and
   financial concerns and not by his membership in any of his proposed social
   groups. See Gonzales-Veliz, 938 F.3d at 224. At his hearing before the IJ,
   Anzures-Lopez testified that the reason the cartel members targeted him was
   “because of money.” He further testified that the cartel members were
   dedicated to extorting people and that “[t]hey don’t care who it is.”
   “Conduct that is driven by criminal . . . motives does not constitute
   persecution” on account of a protected ground. See Vasquez-De Lopez v.
   Lynch, 620 F. App’x 293, 295 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380
   F.3d 788, 792-93 (5th Cir. 2004)); see also Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885, 890
   (5th Cir. 2014) (stating that “[t]his court does not recognize economic
   extortion as a form of persecution under immigration law”).
          Anzures-Lopez next argues that the BIA erred in adopting the IJ’s
   denial of CAT relief. He claims that he faces a likelihood of torture in Mexico
   given his credible testimony about his kidnapping and beating by members of
   the Zetas cartel and subsequent death threats by cartel members, as well as
   country conditions evidence showing that the police in Mexico are corrupt

                                             3
Case: 22-60375      Document: 00516789077         Page: 4   Date Filed: 06/15/2023

                                   No. 22-60375

   and that government efforts to address corruption have largely been
   ineffective.
           Though the country conditions evidence describes instances of police
   corruption and brutality, on balance, it does not compel the conclusion that
   Anzures-Lopez would “more likely than not” be tortured if removed to
   Mexico. See Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 415 (5th Cir. 2006).
   Further, because Anzures-Lopez failed to show that his experiences in
   Mexico amounted to persecution, he cannot meet the higher standard for
   torture, which “is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does
   not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
   punishment that do not amount to torture.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2);
   see Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 911 (5th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, the BIA
   reasonably concluded that Anzures-Lopez was not eligible for CAT relief.
   See Omagah, 288 F.3d at 258.
           The petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in
   part.

                                            4