Court Opinion

ID: 9392628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-05 18:00:43.605893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:47.413549
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60531        Document: 00516739987             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/05/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                FILED
                                                                              May 5, 2023
                                      No. 22-60531
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                 Clerk
                                    ____________

   Jesus Duarte,

                                                                                  Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A089 937 396
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Jesus Duarte, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a
   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: 22-60531        Document: 00516739987             Page: 2      Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                        No. 22-60531

           This court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s decision
   only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d
   511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for
   substantial evidence, and its rulings of law 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). This court 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). “The applicant has the burden
   of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder
   could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id.
           Duarte 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 United States citizen son would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual
   hardship upon his removal to Mexico. The hardship determination “is a
   discretionary and authoritative decision” which “is beyond [this court’s]
   review” under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43
   F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022) (per curiam). Accordingly, this court lacks
   jurisdiction to consider Duarte’s challenge to the BIA’s hardship
   determination.1 Id.; see Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622 (2022).
           Duarte argues that the BIA abused its discretion in finding that he was
   ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). He
   challenges the BIA’s factual finding that his proposed social group of
   “imputed American citizen” was not cognizable. This court has repeatedly
           _____________________
           1
              Duarte also argues that the IJ violated his right to due process by failing to
   consider and weigh all of the evidence in determining that he lacked the requisite good
   moral character for cancellation of removal. The BIA did not, however, address or adopt
   the IJ’s findings regarding good moral character. As such, this court need not consider
   Duarte’s arguments related to that factor. See Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 584 n.3
   (5th Cir. 2011).

                                                  2
Case: 22-60531      Document: 00516739987           Page: 3     Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                     No. 22-60531

   held, however, that “persons believed to be wealthy because they are
   returning to their home country from the United States do not constitute a
   sufficiently particular social group to support an application for withholding
   of removal.” Gonzalez-Soto v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 682, 684 (5th Cir. 2016) (per
   curiam) (citing Diaz v. Holder, 537 F. App’x 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2013); Segovia
   v. Holder, 406 F. App’x 930, 930-31 (5th Cir. 2011)). As such, the BIA
   reasonably found that Duarte’s proposed social group of “imputed American
   citizen” was not cognizable.
          With respect to his other proposed social group of “nuclear family
   member of Lydia Gomez, a former Mexican police officer,” Duarte asserts
   that the BIA erred in finding that he had failed to show a clear probability that
   he would be persecuted on account of his membership in this group.
   Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion regarding nexus.
   See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 517. Duarte testified that in 2008 or 2009,
   the cartel threatened to kill his aunt Lydia if she did not quit the police force.
   His aunt later left the police force, and Duarte testified that she has not
   received any threats from the cartel in at least a decade. Furthermore, there
   was no evidence that the cartel had threatened or harmed any of Lydia’s
   family members residing in Mexico. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 193
   (5th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he reasonableness of an alien’s fear of persecution is
   reduced when his family remains in his native country unharmed for a long
   period of time after his departure.”).
          Duarte also argues that the BIA erred in applying the more stringent
   “one central reason” standard that applies to asylum claims when denying
   his claim for withholding of removal. He contends that the standard for
   showing nexus for withholding of removal is the lower “a reason” standard.
   He acknowledges, however, that this court has already rejected this argument
   in Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 271 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied,
   142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022).

                                               3
Case: 22-60531     Document: 00516739987           Page: 4   Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                    No. 22-60531

          Finally, Duarte argues that the BIA erred in adopting the IJ’s denial of
   CAT protection. He contends that contrary to the IJ’s finding, he faces a
   likelihood of torture in Mexico by the cartels. He emphasizes that his uncle
   was murdered by the cartels and his aunt was repeatedly threatened by the
   cartels. He also relies on country conditions evidence showing that cartels
   operate throughout the country with impunity, that government officials are
   corrupt, and that efforts to address criminality and gang violence in Mexico
   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
   Duarte would “more likely than not” be tortured if removed to Mexico.
   See Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 415 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Chen, 470
   F.3d 1142 (explaining that “[t]he government’s inability to provide
   ‘complete security’ to the petitioner from [private actors] did not rise to the
   level of state action” required under the CAT).
          Duarte’s testimony about the threats and harm his family members
   experienced in Mexico likewise does not compel the reversal of the BIA’s
   denial of CAT relief. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. The incidents Duarte
   described involving his aunt and uncle occurred at least a decade ago, and as
   the BIA emphasized, Duarte’s family members, including his aunt, continue
   to live in Mexico unharmed, which undermines his claim that he would be
   tortured. See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 494 (5th Cir. 2015)
   (concluding that BIA reasonably denied CAT relief based, in part, on the
   finding that petitioner’s family members were not tortured, despite
   remaining in Honduras after petitioner’s brother was murdered).
          The petition is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

                                             4