Court Opinion

ID: 9554456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 00:00:36.575887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:58.775461
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60552        Document: 00516850748             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/08/2023

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

                                                                                      FILED
                                      No. 22-60552                               August 8, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                      Clerk

   Francisco Navarro Garcia; Rosa Isela De La Fuente De
   Hoyos; Demian Francisco Navarro De La Fuente,

                                                                               Petitioners,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                             Agency Nos. A206 607 310,
                             A206 607 311, A206 607 370
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Petitioners Francisco Navarro Garcia, Rosa Isela De La Fuente, and
   Demian Francisco Navarro De La Fuente are natives and citizens of Mexico.
   They petition us to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
   (BIA) to uphold a denial of (1) asylum, (2) withholding of removal, and (3)

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60552      Document: 00516850748          Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                    No. 22-60552

   protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Navarro Garcia,
   as the lead petitioner, claimed persecution based on political opinion and
   membership in a particular social group (PSG).
          We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s
   decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. See Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d
   393, 396 (5th Cir. 2020). The BIA’s factual determinations are reviewed for
   substantial evidence. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). A
   petitioner must show that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable
   factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion. Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794
   F.3d 485, 489 (5th Cir. 2015). We do not consider issues that the BIA deemed
   to have been waived by the petitioners on appeal. See Santos-Alvarado v. Barr,
   967 F.3d 428, 440 n.13 (5th Cir. 2020).
          The record does not compel a conclusion that the kidnappings within
   Navarro Garcia’s family were motivated by either political animus or his
   membership in a PSG. See Ramirez-Mejia, 794 F.3d at 493. Economic
   extortion does not constitute persecution based on a protected ground. See
   id. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that petitioners
   have not established a well-founded fear of persecution in Mexico, given that
   Navarro Garcia’s siblings have remained in Mexico unharmed. Navarro
   Garcia maintained his government job and stayed in Mexico unharmed for
   about eight months after his father’s death, and he twice returned to Mexico
   unharmed. See Gjetani, 968 F.3d at 399.
          Petitioners also assert due process violations, but they fail to
   adequately brief the contentions: They have not adequately identified any
   arguments that the BIA failed to consider or why 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)
   would apply when there was no finding by the immigration judge or BIA that
   past persecution based on account of a protected ground was established. See
   Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that

                                              2
Case: 22-60552      Document: 00516850748          Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                    No. 22-60552

   petitioners waive issues that they do not adequately brief). To the extent the
   Petitioners seek to attack the merits of the conclusion that they failed to
   establish a well-founded fear of persecution, their contention is merely
   cloaked in the “constitutional garb” of due process and fails for the reasons
   discussed above. See Hadwani v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir. 2006)
   (citation omitted).
          Petitioners have failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum and thus
   have accordingly failed to satisfy their burden for withholding of removal. See
   Gjetani, 968 F.3d at 399-400. Also, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
   conclusion that Petitioners failed to establish the requisite likelihood of
   torture for protection under the CAT for the same reasons that they have
   failed to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                             3