Court Opinion

ID: 9909343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 01:00:41.076383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:04.802627
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60312        Document: 00516998448             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/12/2023

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

                                                                                      FILED
                                      No. 23-60312                            December 12, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________
                                                                                      Clerk

   Geronimo Maximiliano Hernandez-Perez; Astrid
   Maribel Hernandez-Fuentes; Leidi Karla Hernandez-
   Fuentes; Kerlin Maribel Hernandez-Fuentes,

                                                                               Petitioners,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                             Agency Nos. A206 630 326,
                            A206 630 327, A206 630 328,
                                     A206 630 329
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Geronimo Maximiliano Hernandez-Perez and three of his children
   petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60312       Document: 00516998448         Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/12/2023

                                    No. 23-60312

   affirming the denial of: asylum; withholding of removal; and protection
   under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioners are natives and
   citizens of Guatemala, and the children were derivatives on Hernandez’
   application for relief.
          Our court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the immigration
   judge’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. See, e.g., Orellana-
   Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012) (explaining review
   standard). The BIA concluded Hernandez waived the issue of humanitarian
   asylum because he did not meaningfully contest it before the BIA. Although
   Hernandez now contends he is entitled to humanitarian asylum, he forfeits
   the contention because he does not brief any challenge to the BIA’s waiver
   ruling. See e.g., Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 401 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021)
   (explaining unbriefed issues are forfeited). Neither did Hernandez brief any
   challenge to the denial of protection under the CAT, forfeiting that issue as
   well. See id.
          To the extent Hernandez challenges the asylum and withholding-of-
   removal rulings, his challenges are unavailing. The BIA’s factual
   determination that an individual is not eligible for asylum or withholding of
   removal is reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard. E.g., Munoz-
   De Zelaya v. Garland, 80 F.4th 689, 693 (5th Cir. 2023) (outlining standard
   of review). Under that standard, “reversal is improper unless the evidence
   not only supports a contrary conclusion but compels it”. Id.
          To be eligible for asylum, Hernandez was required to show his “race,
   religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
   opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting” him. 8
   U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Hernandez alleges persecution on account of his
   proposed social group, “Guatemalan homeless, destitute persons without
   government assistance”. Specifically, he contends Guatemala’s lack of a

                                         2
Case: 23-60312     Document: 00516998448          Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/12/2023

                                   No. 23-60312

   social-welfare net for homeless individuals in his circumstances, a destitute
   widower with five children to house and care for, amounts to economic
   persecution. Although economic injury can constitute persecution in some
   circumstances, the persecutor must inflict the harm with the intent of
   targeting the applicant. E.g., Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 771 (5th
   Cir. 2019) (outlining intent requirement). The evidence does not compel this
   conclusion. See id. (finding no past persecution without intent); see also
   Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2020) (recognizing fear
   of general civil disorder is not sufficient to support fear of future
   persecution). Because Hernandez has failed to demonstrate eligibility for
   asylum, he has also failed to satisfy his higher burden for withholding of
   removal. See e.g., Munoz-Granados, 958 F.3d at 408 (“[O]ne who fails to
   show entitlement to asylum fails to show entitlement to withholding of
   removal”.).
          DENIED.

                                        3