Court Opinion

ID: 9841236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 18:01:07.576655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:06.314647
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60200        Document: 00516903426             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/21/2023

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

                                                                                     FILED
                                      No. 23-60200                           September 21, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                     Clerk

   Glenda Gissela Betancourth-Cadalzo; Cristhian
   Alejandro Campos-Betancourth; Kimberly Noelia
   Campos-Betancourth,

                                                                               Petitioners,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                             Agency Nos. A209 291 243,
                                    A209 291 244,
                                     A209 291 245
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Glenda Gissela Betancourth-Cadalzo, a native and citizen of
   Honduras, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60200      Document: 00516903426           Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                    No. 23-60200

   the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied
   her application and ordered her removed.          The Board of Immigration
   Appeals (BIA) dismissed her appeal. Betancourth petitions our court for
   review of, inter alia, the denial of the three bases for her application.
   (Betancourth’s minor children are the other petitioners and derivatives on
   her application for relief.)
          The BIA’s determinations that Betancourth was ineligible for asylum,
   withholding, and CAT relief are factual findings our court reviews for
   substantial evidence. E.g., Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir.
   2005) (outlining standard of review). Under that standard, reversal is
   improper unless the court decides “not only that the evidence supports a
   contrary conclusion, but that the evidence compels it.” Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d
   76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994) (emphasis in original).
          Regarding     Betancourth’s    asylum     and   withholding-of-removal
   challenges, she asserts membership in the particular social group of “Female
   Honduran Business Owners”.           She contends the BIA erred by not
   recognizing the group as “socially distinct” and therefore not legally
   cognizable. E.g., Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 403 (5th Cir. 2021) (“[A]n
   applicant must show that the [particular social] group is . . . (3) socially
   distinct within the society in question.”). As proof the group is “socially
   distinct”, Betancourth points to evidence that Honduran gangs and criminals
   focus on business owners. That evidence, however, is insufficient to compel
   a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s. E.g., Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819
   F.3d 784, 786–87 (5th Cir. 2016) (holding proposed social group must be
   recognized as “discrete class of persons” in relevant society (citation
   omitted)).
          The BIA also denied Betancourth’s CAT claim because she had not
   previously been tortured, presented only speculative fear of future harm, and,

                                          2
Case: 23-60200      Document: 00516903426           Page: 3     Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                     No. 23-60200

   therefore, did not establish she will likely be tortured with official
   acquiescence upon repatriation. E.g., Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818
   (5th Cir. 2017) (“Pursuant to [CAT] . . . the United States may not remove
   an alien to a country in which the alien is more likely than not to be
   tortured.”). In her petition, Betancourth presents evidence that Honduran
   officials are corrupt. This evidence, however, is not enough to compel the
   conclusion that she likely faces torture if she returns to Honduras or that such
   torture will involve state action. See id. (denying CAT claim supported by
   news stories and reports describing El Salvador as particularly dangerous for
   unnamed women and children).
          In addition, Betancourth requests remand because of an allegedly
   defective notice to appear. Our court “will not remand if doing so would be
   ‘futile’ and there is ‘no realistic possibility’ that the BIA would have reached
   a different conclusion”. Reese v. Garland, 66 F.4th 530, 536 (5th Cir. 2023)
   (footnote and citation omitted) (refusing remand). Here, remand would be
   futile because Betancourth waived her challenge by failing to object before
   the closing of pleadings before the IJ. Matter of Fernandes, 28 I. & N. Dec.
   605, 608–11 (BIA 2022) (“[I]f a respondent does not raise an objection to a
   defect in the notice to appear in a timely manner, such an objection is waived
   or forfeited. . . . [The notice is] timely if it is raised prior to the closing of
   pleadings before the Immigration Judge.”).
          DENIED.

                                           3