Court Opinion

ID: 9381845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 00:00:30.421929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:34.909566
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60177        Document: 00516687083             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/23/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-60177
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                                                                March 23, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Carlos Leonel Erazo-Flores,                                                        Clerk

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.

                          Petition for Review of an Order of the
                              Board of Immigration Appeals
                                Agency No. A209-305-007

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Carlos Leonel Erazo-Flores petitions for review of the BIA’s decision
   denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
   Convention Against Torture. For the following reasons, the petition is
   DENIED.

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60177      Document: 00516687083           Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/23/2023

                                     No. 22-60177

                                          I.
          Carlos Leonel Erazo-Flores is a native and citizen of Honduras. He
   testified that in 2013, he was leaving church in his village in Honduras when
   four drunk male strangers came up to him, grabbed him, beat him, and raped
   him. The men took Erazo-Flores, threw him on the ground, and asked him
   why he went to church. They laughed at him, said he was “going to be a gay
   [sic],” and threatened to kill him if he yelled. Erazo-Flores did not report this
   incident to the police because, in part, he was afraid the police would tell
   others that he had been sexually assaulted.
          Additionally, Erazo-Flores testified to various encounters with gang
   members between April 2014 and May 2015. Some men tried to steal Erazo-
   Flores’s motorcycle, and gang members later attempted to recruit Erazo-
   Flores. Erazo-Flores reported one such incident to the police, but an officer
   tore up his written statement and told him that the gangs would find out he
   had filed a report. Erazo-Flores and his father then received various threats
   via text message. Finally, in June 2017, someone—Erazo-Flores believes it
   was a gang member—hit the car of Erazo-Flores’s father from behind and
   shot at him.
          In 2016, Erazo-Flores entered the United States without
   authorization. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) then issued
   him a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) charging him with removal as a noncitizen
   not in possession of a valid entry document at time of entry. Through
   counsel, Erazo-Flores conceded the NTA’s factual allegations and charge.
   He then filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

                                          2
Case: 22-60177           Document: 00516687083              Page: 3      Date Filed: 03/23/2023

                                            No. 22-60177

   Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) based on, as relevant to this appeal,
   his religion and membership in a particular social group (“PSG”). 1
           At his hearing in front of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), Erazo-Flores
   proffered seven PSGs based primarily on his imputed membership in the
   LGBTQ community, Catholicism, and opposition to criminal gangs. 2 The IJ
   denied Erazo-Flores’s application. Concerning his asylum and withholding
   of removal claims, the IJ first held that Erazo-Flores could not establish the
   requisite nexus to a protected ground. The IJ also held that Erazo-Flores’s
   proffered PSG of “Honduran male witnesses” was not a cognizable PSG.
   Finally, the IJ denied Erazo-Flores’s application for CAT protection for
   failure to establish a sufficient likelihood of future torture with the requisite
   state acquiescence. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the
   IJ’s decision without a written opinion. Erazo-Flores timely filed a petition
   for review with this court.
                                                 II.
           “When . . . the BIA affirms the immigration judge and relies on the
   reasons set forth in the immigration judge’s decision, this court reviews the
   decision of the immigration judge as well as the decision of the BIA.” Ahmed
   v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006). In doing so, we review for
   substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, which include an applicant’s
   eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Chen v.

           1
               Erazo-Flores withdrew his political opinion-based claims for relief
           2
             Specifically, these seven PSGs are: (1) imputed members of the LGBTQ
   community; (2) Catholic-Honduran males; (3) Honduran males perceived to be enemies
   of criminal gangs by virtue of their opposition to gang influence; (4) Honduran males
   perceived to be advocates for strong rule of law by virtue of their resistance to gang
   influence; (5) Catholic-Honduran males who refuse to join criminal gangs; (6) Honduran
   males perceived to encourage public opposition to criminal gangs by refusing to submit to
   gang authority; and (7) Honduran male witnesses.

                                                  3
Case: 22-60177       Document: 00516687083          Page: 4   Date Filed: 03/23/2023

                                    No. 22-60177

   Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence exists if
   the BIA’s conclusion was “based upon the evidence presented
   and . . . substantially reasonable,” Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197
   (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Wilson v. INS, 43 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1995)), and
   we will reverse the BIA’s factual findings only if “the evidence compels” a
   contrary result because “no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it,”
   Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536–37 (5th Cir. 2009).
                      A. Asylum and Withholding of Removal
          To receive asylum, an applicant must establish the suffered or feared
   persecution was on account of one of the five statutorily protected grounds;
   this   is   the   “nexus   requirement.”     8    U.S.C.   §§ 1101(a)(42)(A),
   1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013); see
   Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzalez, 447 F.3d 343, 349 (5th Cir. 2006) (noting the
   noncitizen “carries the burden to establish a nexus”).
          On appeal, Erazo-Flores first argues he is eligible for asylum and
   withholding of removal because his sexual assault by the four men qualifies
   as past persecution on account of his religion. But the record indicates that
   this sexual assault could also be characterized as personally- or criminally-
   motivated conduct not constituting persecution on account of a protected
   ground. See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 492–93 (5th Cir. 2015)
   (affirming a determination of no nexus where evidence suggested
   motivations for harm were to criminally extort information). The IJ
   concluded that the four men approached Erazo-Flores intending to commit
   assault based on general criminal motivations, not by Erazo-Flores’s religious
   background. This conclusion is supported by the record. Erazo-Flores
   testified that the men did not know who he was or that he was religious when
   he was initially approached. The men approached Erazo-Flores and,
   according to his affidavit, grabbed and threw him to the ground before he told

                                         4
Case: 22-60177     Document: 00516687083           Page: 5   Date Filed: 03/23/2023

                                    No. 22-60177

   the attackers that he was coming from church. These men did not know of
   Erazo-Flores’s religious background when they approached and attacked
   him, and Erazo-Flores testified that he never saw these men again. This thus
   suggests that this attack was the kind of random, indiscriminate violence
   driven by a criminal motive that we have previously declined to consider
   persecution on account of a protected ground. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d
   788, 792–93 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding that officers motivated by criminal,
   personal reasons did not persecute applicant on account of a protected
   ground). Under such facts, the evidence does not compel a result contrary to
   the IJ’s conclusion that any purported religious motivation on the part of the
   attackers was an “incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate” reason
   for the harm. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal
   citation omitted). The IJ’s decision that Erazo-Flores had failed to establish
   nexus is thus “supported by record evidence and substantially reasonable.”
   Revencu v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 396, 401 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Shaikh, 588
   F.3d at 863).
          Erazo-Flores next argues that he was threatened and fears reprisal
   from gang members because of his filing a police report and his membership
   in the PSG of “Honduran male witnesses.” A PSG must be (i) “composed
   of members who share a common immutable characteristic,” (ii) “defined
   with particularity,” and (iii) “socially distinct within the society in
   question.” Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014); see
   Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 519–22 (5th Cir. 2012) (according
   deference to the BIA’s interpretation of a PSG and noting that the agency’s
   factual findings on PSG cognizability criteria must be supported by
   substantial evidence). Concerning the social distinction requirement, social
   distinction is “determined by ‘the extent to which members of a society
   perceive those with the characteristic in question as members of a social

                                         5
Case: 22-60177      Document: 00516687083           Page: 6   Date Filed: 03/23/2023

                                     No. 22-60177

   group.’” Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786 (5th Cir. 2016)
   (quoting Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 519–20).
          Groups based on being a witness lack the required social distinction to
   qualify as a PSG, as members of such groups “are not substantially different
   from anyone else in the general population” who resist criminal
   organizations. Hernandez-De La Cruz, 819 F.3d at 787. The present case is
   no different. The IJ found no evidence suggesting that the Honduran
   community views male witnesses as a separate and distinct part of the
   community. Erazo-Flores’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. He
   notes “widely unenforced laws which have been enacted in Honduras to
   protect members of civil society from gang violence” as evidence of social
   distinction. But he does not identify any laws with the requisite specificity
   required for us to consider these as evidence of social distinction. Cf.
   Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393, 405 (5th Cir. 2003) (explaining that courts
   will not sift through the record to identify the specific evidence supporting a
   party’s contention). And in any case, his characterization of these laws as
   protecting “members of civil society” does not show that these laws
   distinguish between “Honduran male witnesses” and the larger, more
   general group of Hondurans (who may not be witnesses) requiring protection
   from gang violence. See Aranda-Galvan v. Lynch, 623 F. App’x 217, 219 (5th
   Cir. 2015) (rejecting PSG because plaintiff did not show evidence compelling
   a conclusion that his native country’s society perceives those individuals as a
   distinct group); Matter of H-L-S-A-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 228, 239 (BIA 2021)
   (similar). Similarly, he argues that his proffered PSG is socially distinct
   because “rumors began to spread throughout his community that he had
   defied the authority of the gangs,” but such occurrences say nothing about
   whether Honduran society views Honduran male witnesses as a distinct
   group. Accordingly, this proffered PSG fails for lack of social distinction, and
   it cannot serve as a basis for Erazo-Flores’s asylum claim. The IJ did not err

                                          6
Case: 22-60177         Document: 00516687083              Page: 7       Date Filed: 03/23/2023

                                          No. 22-60177

   in refusing to recognize this PSG and in denying Erazo-Flores’s asylum claim
   on these grounds.
           Additionally, because the level of proof required for withholding of
   removal is “more stringent than for asylum purposes,” Erazo-Flores’s
   failure to establish eligibility for asylum necessarily dooms his withholding of
   removal claim. 3 Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 186 n.2 (5th Cir. 2004)
   (quoting Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 306 (5th Cir.1997)).
                              B. Convention Against Torture
           Concerning his CAT claim, Erazo-Flores also challenges the BIA’s
   determination that he did not establish a clear probability of future torture;
   he argues his testimony and proffered evidence compel the conclusion that
   he established eligibility for CAT protection. An applicant seeking CAT
   protection must prove that he will more likely than not be tortured “by or at
   the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official
   acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity.”
   Tabora Gutierrez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 496, 502 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8
   C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1)); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). In assessing the
   likelihood of torture, the IJ considers evidence of past torture, the applicant’s
   ability to relocate within the country of removal to avoid torture, and human
   rights violations within the country of removal. Tabora Gutierrez, 12 F.4th at
   503.
           Erazo-Flores fails to demonstrate that he is more likely than not to be
   tortured. He does not adequately explain what record evidence supports

           3
              Because Erazo-Flores presents no arguments on appeal concerning his other
   proposed PSGs, he has waived these arguments. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345
   (5th Cir. 1994) (“An appellant abandons all issues not raised and argued in its initial brief
   on appeal. . . . A party who inadequately briefs an issue is considered to have abandoned
   the claim.”).

                                                7
Case: 22-60177        Document: 00516687083             Page: 8      Date Filed: 03/23/2023

                                         No. 22-60177

   reversing the IJ’s determination that his past harm did not rise to the requisite
   level of “severe pain or suffering.” Id. at 502. Additionally, Erazo-Flores
   does not adequately contest the IJ’s conclusion that he could relocate to avoid
   future harm because he was able to live for over a year in Honduras without
   incident. Thus, the IJ’s conclusions concerning a lack of past torture and
   Erazo-Flores’s ability to safely relocate are substantially reasonable. Revencu,
   895 F.3d at 401. Consequently, Erazo-Flores cannot show a likelihood of
   torture, which precludes his eligibility for CAT protection. 4 Tabora
   Gutierrez, 12 F.4th at 502–03.
                                             III.
           For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.

           4
             We need not and thus do not reach the state acquiescence prong of the CAT
   analysis and thus decline to consider Erazo-Flores’s arguments that the Honduran
   government would acquiesce to any future torture. See, e.g., Tabora Gutierrez, 12 F.4th at
   503 (stating that a CAT applicant must show both likelihood of torture and state
   acquiescence to receive CAT protection).

                                               8