Court Opinion

ID: 9394301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-13 00:00:41.323954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:58.580295
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60323        Document: 00516748928             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/12/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-60323
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                                 May 12, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   Edyn Nahun Alvarez,                                                               Clerk

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A205 870 676
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Edyn Nahun Alvarez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
   review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding
   the denial of 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: 22-60323       Document: 00516748928         Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/12/2023

                                    No. 22-60323

            We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s
   decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. See Munoz-Granados v.
   Barr, 958 F.3d 402, 406 (5th Cir. 2020). Legal questions are reviewed de
   novo. Id. The BIA’s factual determination that an individual is not eligible
   for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief is reviewed under the
   substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.
   2006).
            Alvarez first challenges the determination that his application for
   asylum was time barred.        Because his argument regarding 8 U.S.C.
   § 1158(a)(2)(B) concerns the disputed factual question of whether he
   submitted an asylum application to attorneys in 2014 for filing, we lack
   jurisdiction to review the issue. See § 1158(a)(3); Arif v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d
   677, 680 (5th Cir. 2007); Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594-96 (5th Cir.
   2007).
            Regarding withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the
   BIA’s determination that Alvarez’s alleged harm did not rise to the level of
   persecution. He alleged that one threat, conveyed in a note to his uncle in
   Honduras, was made to his life in 2013 by the killers of his stepbrother. The
   note warned Alvarez, who was in the United States, not to return to
   Honduras. Even assuming that a threat to Alvarez’s life while he was not in
   Honduras could constitute persecution, “threats that are exaggerated, non-
   specific, or lacking in immediacy should not suffice.” Munoz-Granados, 958
   F.3d at 407 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The alleged
   threat was too lacking in immediacy to constitute persecution. See id.
   Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision on the issue of
   persecution, we need not address the BIA’s additional determination that
   Alvarez failed to demonstrate a nexus between the alleged harm and a
   protected ground. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).

                                             2
Case: 22-60323      Document: 00516748928           Page: 3    Date Filed: 05/12/2023

                                     No. 22-60323

          To obtain protection under the CAT, Alvarez was required to show
   that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured in Honduras by, or
   with the acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official
   capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1); Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d
   222, 228 (5th Cir. 2019). He argues that his documentary evidence showed
   that government officials in Honduras were ineffective against crime and
   therefore likely would be unable to protect him. The argument is unavailing,
   as “a government’s inability to protect its citizens does not amount to
   acquiescence.”     See Martinez Manzanares, 925 F.3d at 229 (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted). Alvarez has not shown that the
   evidence compels a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination that he
   failed to demonstrate governmental acquiescence for purposes of CAT relief.
          The petition for review is DISMISSED in part for lack of
   jurisdiction and DENIED in all other respects.

                                              3