Court Opinion

ID: 9404004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 00:00:43.18878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:10.694582
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60635        Document: 00516795328             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/21/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                  June 21, 2023
                                      No. 22-60635
                                    Summary Calendar                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
                                    ____________

   Rafael Antonio Ayala-Flores,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A206 801 476
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Rafael Antonio Ayala-Flores, a native and citizen of Honduras,
   petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing
   his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) ordering him removed
   and denying his application for asylum, 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: 22-60635      Document: 00516795328          Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/21/2023

                                    No. 22-60635

          We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s ruling only to the
   extent it influenced that of the BIA. E.g., Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863
   (5th Cir. 2009). Factual determinations that an alien is ineligible for asylum,
   withholding of removal, and CAT protection are reviewed for substantial
   evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Under this
   standard, we may not disturb the BIA’s decision unless the evidence
   “compels” a contrary conclusion.       Id. (emphasis in original) (citation
   omitted).
          For his asylum claim, Ayala had the burden of showing he suffered
   past-persecution or had “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of”
   a protected ground. Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 360 (5th Cir. 2014)
   (citation omitted). In this context, “on account of” means the protected
   ground “was or will be at least one central reason” for the persecution. Id.
   (citation omitted).
          Ayala maintains a man believed to have killed his father threatened
   Ayala in response to his filing a police report regarding the murder.
   Assuming this amounted to persecution, Ayala fails to demonstrate the
   threats were sufficiently related to a protected ground. Rather, the record
   supports the BIA’s finding that the man was motivated by retaliation against
   Ayala for filing the report and to avoid prosecution. Substantial evidence
   therefore supports the BIA’s finding Ayala failed to show the requisite nexus
   for asylum. See id at 364.
          Because Ayala fails to establish his eligibility for asylum, he cannot
   meet the higher burden for withholding of removal. E.g., Dayo v. Holder, 687
   F.3d 653, 658–59 (5th Cir. 2012). Further, because his failure to demonstrate
   the requisite nexus is dispositive as to asylum and withholding of removal, we
   need not address his remaining arguments concerning those forms of relief.
   See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and

                                             2
Case: 22-60635      Document: 00516795328          Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/21/2023

                                    No. 22-60635

   agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
   unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
          Finally, he has not shown that the evidence compels a finding he
   would more likely than not be tortured with governmental acquiescence if
   repatriated; therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denying CAT
   relief. See Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017).
          DENIED.

                                               3