Court Opinion

ID: 9943532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 19:01:03.637563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:12.033495
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60522           Document: 70-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/23/2024

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

                                   No. 22-60522                                    FILED
                                 Summary Calendar                           February 23, 2024
                                 ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                   Clerk
Ruth Nohemi Rodriguez-Velasquez,

                                                                              Petitioner,

                                         versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                            Respondent.
                  ______________________________

                     Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A208 542 220
                  ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Ruth Nohemi Rodriguez-Velasquez, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA)
upholding the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT); and ordering
her removed.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60522        Document: 70-1        Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/23/2024

                                  No. 22-60522

       Our court reviews the BIA’s decision, considering the decision of the
immigration judge only to the extent it influenced the BIA. E.g., Singh v.
Barr, 920 F.3d 255, 258–59 (5th Cir. 2019). 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. E.g., Chen v.
Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, reversal
is improper unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. “The
applicant has the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that
no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id.
       Regarding Rodriguez’ humanitarian-asylum contention, she failed to
exhaust this claim in the BIA. See Monteon-Camargo v. Barr, 918 F.3d 423,
429 (5th Cir. 2019) (“An alien fails to exhaust his administrative remedies
with respect to an issue when the issue is not raised in the first instance before
the BIA.” (citation omitted)). Because the Government raises exhaustion,
our court will enforce this claim-processing rule and decline to consider this
issue. See Carreon v. Garland, 71 F.4th 247, 257 (5th Cir. 2023) (declining to
review unexhausted issue).
       Additionally, Rodriguez’ contentions for asylum and withholding of
removal fail because she has not shown the evidence compels the conclusion,
contrary to the agency’s, that the perpetrator was a private actor whom the
government of El Salvador was unable or unwilling to control. See Sanchez-
Amador v. Garland, 30 F.4th 529, 533–35 (5th Cir. 2022) (denying petition
because “[s]ubstantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that [petitioner]
did not establish that the government is unable or unwilling to control the
alleged persecutors”); Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir.
2019) (“If an applicant does not carry his burden for asylum, he will not
qualify for withholding of removal.” (citation omitted)). Because this is
dispositive of her asylum and withholding claims, we need not consider her
remaining contentions concerning those forms of relief.             See INS v.

                                        2
Case: 22-60522       Document: 70-1         Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/23/2024

                                 No. 22-60522

Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
       Finally, regarding her CAT claim, Rodriguez likewise fails to show the
evidence compels a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s that she failed to satisfy
the state-action requirement. E.g., Tabora Gutierrez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 496,
504–05 (5th Cir. 2021) (denying petition for CAT relief); Martinez-Lopez v.
Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 772–73 (5th Cir. 2019) (same).
       DENIED.

                                      3