Court Opinion

ID: 9403405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 00:00:34.523227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:06.671270
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60558        Document: 00516792913             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/20/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                  June 20, 2023
                                      No. 22-60558
                                    Summary Calendar                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                      Clerk

   Maricela Michell Sierra Najera; Antony Dariel Sierra
   Najera,

                                                                               Petitioners,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                             Agency Nos. A206 776 451,
                                     A215 948 282
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Maricela Michell Sierra Najera, a native and citizen of Honduras, and
   her son, Antony Dariel Sierra Najera, petition for review of the decision by
   Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from the
   immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of Maricela’s application for asylum,

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60558      Document: 00516792913          Page: 2     Date Filed: 06/20/2023

                                    No. 22-60558

   withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
   Torture (CAT). Because Antony is Maricela’s derivative beneficiary, only
   Maricela will be hereinafter referred to.
          We review the BIA’s decision and will consider the IJ’s underlying
   decision only if it impacted the BIA’s decision as it did here. See Sharma v.
   Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Findings of fact, including the
   denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, are reviewed
   under the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131,
   1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Sharma, 729
   F.3d at 411.    Whether we have jurisdiction is also reviewed de novo.
   Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2021).
          Before reaching the merits of Sierra Najera’s petition, the
   Government asserts that her arguments regarding the BIA’s legal errors in
   dismissing her appeal are unexhausted—thereby depriving the court of
   jurisdiction—because she did not first raise them before the BIA in a motion
   to reconsider. However, the Supreme Court in Santos-Zacaria v. Garland,
   143 S. Ct. 1103, 1119-20 & n.9 (2023), recently held that exhaustion under 8
   U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) does not require an alien to file a motion for
   reconsideration where an issue for review arises in the BIA’s decision, i.e.,
   alleged BIA error, because it is not a remedy available as of right. See Santos-
   Zacaria, 143 S. Ct. at 1119-20 & n.9. Thus, we have jurisdiction to review her
   claims.
          We reject Sierra Najera’s next argument that the BIA reviewed the
   IJ’s decision with the incorrect and more deferential standard of review
   because it is premised on her conflation of the gang members’ motives
   (criminal, financial) in order to determine persecution with whether the
   Honduran government is unable or unwilling to protect her from said
   persecution, both of which must be satisfied in order to prevail on her asylum

                                               2
Case: 22-60558      Document: 00516792913            Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/20/2023

                                      No. 22-60558

   claim. See Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 401, 406-07 (5th Cir. 2021). Her
   argument that the BIA erred by only evaluating the state action element of
   her CAT claim instead of evaluating both elements similarly lacks merit. See
   INS v. 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.”).
          She then argues that the BIA failed to address country data evidence
   regarding gang violence in Honduras or “properly” explain its denial of her
   CAT claim. However, while the BIA did not cite the specific evidence to
   which Sierra Najera refers, it did acknowledge the problems of crime and
   violence in Honduras, and its decision reflects meaningful consideration of
   her CAT claim as it dedicated a lengthy paragraph to the issue with
   references to the record and case law. See Abdel-Masieh v. U.S. I.N.S., 73
   F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that the BIA is not required to “address
   evidentiary minutiae or write any lengthy exegesis” and that “its decision
   must reflect meaningful consideration of the relevant substantial evidence
   supporting the alien’s claims”).
          Her argument that the BIA erred in citing Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N.
   Dec. 316 (U.S. Att’y Gen. 2018) is abandoned because she did not explain
   why exactly the case should be remanded for this reason. See Soadjede v.
   Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Finally, this court has rejected
   Sierra Najera’s last argument that the BIA erred in holding that because she
   could not satisfy the standard for asylum, she necessarily could not establish
   the showing for withholding of removal. See Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7
   F.4th 265, 271 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022).
          Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED and the
   Government’s motion for summary disposition is DENIED as moot.

                                               3