Court Opinion

ID: 9392078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 00:00:33.790777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:44.362853
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60179         Document: 00516737174               Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/03/2023

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

                                      ____________                                          FILED
                                                                                         May 3, 2023
                                        No. 22-60179                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                          Clerk

   Merlyn Roxana Irias-Amaya; Wilmer Astul Irias-Amaya,

                                                                                     Petitioners,

                                              versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                     Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                    Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals
                             Agency Nos. A206 444 380,
                                    A206 444 381
                     ______________________________

   Before Clement, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Merlyn Roxana Irias-Amaya and Wilmer Astul Irias-Amaya, siblings
   who are natives and citizens of Honduras, timely petition this court for
   review of a BIA decision denying asylum and withholding of removal. The
   petition is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60179      Document: 00516737174          Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/03/2023

                                    No. 22-60179

                                Standard of Review
          On petition for review of a BIA decision, this court reviews factual
   findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Lopez-Gomez
   v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). The substantial evidence
   standard applies to review of decisions denying asylum and withholding of
   removal. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). “We review
   the BIA’s findings of facts under the substantial evidence standard, which
   requires that the decision of the BIA be based on the evidence presented and
   that the decision be substantially reasonable.” Orellana-Monson v. Holder,
   685 F.3d 511, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under this standard, reversal is
   improper unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Carbajal-
   Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). “The petitioner has ‘the
   burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable
   factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.’” Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at
   518 (quoting Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.2006)). Normally,
   this court looks only to the BIA’s decision but when the BIA adopts the IJ’s
   decision, without assigning reasons, as it did here, this court reviews the IJ’s
   decision. Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 594 (5th Cir. 2006).
                                    Discussion
          To qualify for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate “either past
   persecution or a reasonable, well-founded fear of future persecution on
   account of” race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
   group, or political opinion. Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 360 (5th Cir. 2014);
   see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Here, the IJ found that Merlyn was
   persecuted in the past, but that Wilmer was not and that neither faced harm
   on account of a protected ground. Both siblings argue that they were
   persecuted on account of a membership in a particular social group,

                                          2
Case: 22-60179         Document: 00516737174             Page: 3      Date Filed: 05/03/2023

                                          No. 22-60179

   specifically, their family. 1 The proposed particular social group must be “at
   least one central reason” for the alleged persecution. 8 U.S.C. §
   1158(b)(1)(B)(i). The IJ found that the siblings failed to establish a nexus
   between the siblings’ claims of persecution and their membership in their
   family group.
                        1. Merlyn Irias Amaya’s Asylum Claim
          Merlyn Irias-Amaya testified that her uncle tried to sexually abuse her
   on several occasions when she was around 11 years old. She told her
   grandmother and parents about the attempted abuse, and, as a result, she
   never saw this uncle again. Additionally, Merlyn testified that when she was
   12 or 13 years old, she was robbed by “[d]elinquents” while she was on her
   way to school. 2
          Merlyn Irias-Amaya does not offer a compelling argument that her
   family was a central reason for her persecution. The IJ found that Merlyn
   failed to show why she was abused and noted that the record showed that
   other family members intervened to protect her. Merlyn now argues that the
   persecution only happened because of her family relationship, and while “a
   statutorily protected ground need not be the only reason for harm, it cannot
   be incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for
   harm.” Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal
   quotations omitted). “A protected ground will likely be incidental when it is
   but a means to an ultimate, unprotected end.” Berrios-Bruno v. Garland, No.

           _____________________
          1
            Before the IJ, the siblings also argued that they were persecuted on account of
   their memberships in groups of “young Honduran females” and “young Honduran
   male[s].” Because they do not raise this argument on appeal, we need not consider it.
          2
              Merlyn offers no explanation why being robbed would entitle her to asylum.

                                                3
Case: 22-60179      Document: 00516737174          Page: 4   Date Filed: 05/03/2023

                                    No. 22-60179

   18-60276, 2021 WL 3624766, at *4 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021) (citing Ramirez-
   Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 492 (5th Cir. 2015)).
          The IJ concluded that the assault likely happened because Merlyn was
   young and vulnerable and not because of any animosity her uncle held against
   the family. Merlyn offers no legitimate argument against the finding except
   for the conclusory statement that “[w]ere it not for that blood relation, [she]
   would likely never have been persecuted.” This, however, is neither
   sufficient nor evidence. There is no evidence in the record that the IJ’s
   conclusion was not substantially reasonable, and, in fact, the only evidence
   available is that the threatened abuse stopped when Merlyn informed her
   parents and grandparents. Merlyn therefore fails to connect any past or future
   persecution to any protected grounds. The IJ’s conclusion was substantially
   reasonable.
                    2. Wilmer Irias-Amaya’s Asylum Claim
          Wilmer argues that he experienced past persecution based on his
   cousin threatening to kidnap him. Wilmer fails to show why this kidnapping
   attempt was connected to the membership in his family as opposed to being
   incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for harm.
   Wilmer, therefore, was not subject to past persecution.
          Additionally, Wilmer testified that he never saw his cousin again after
   this kidnapping attempt. The IJ found that there was no “reason to think that
   the cousin gang member who grabbed [Wilmer] and threatened him with
   kidnapping, and who lived elsewhere, would cause [Wilmer] any problems if
   he were to return from Honduras.” Wilmer fails to show any problems if he
   were to return to Honduras. Because of these reasons, the IJ’s conclusion was
   substantially reasonable.

                                         4
Case: 22-60179        Document: 00516737174            Page: 5      Date Filed: 05/03/2023

                                        No. 22-60179

                              3. Withholding of Removal
             The Irias-Amaya siblings’ withholding of removal claims fails because
   asylum is not established. Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658 n3, 658–59 (5th
   Cir. 2012). The siblings now argue that the standards for establishing nexus
   have been relaxed for withholding claims. This argument is foreclosed by our
   precedent. Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 271 (5th Cir. 2021).

                                        Conclusion
             The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in
   part. 3

             _____________________
             3
            The BIA decision also denied CAT protection, but Petitioners fail to brief this
   claim and it is waived. Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004).

                                              5