Court Opinion

ID: 9929678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 01:00:41.556831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:43:08.575545
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60292        Document: 00517054463             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/02/2024

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

                                      No. 23-60292                                    FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                           February 2, 2024
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Nery Emerita Elvir-Lopez,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A208 759 970
                     ______________________________

   Before Dennis, Wilson, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Nery Emerita Elvir-Lopez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions
   for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   upholding the immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal,
   and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the
   BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s decision only to the

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60292      Document: 00517054463          Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/02/2024

                                    No. 23-60292

   extent it influenced the BIA. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir.
   2009). The BIA’s factual determination that an individual is not eligible for
   asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection is reviewed for
   substantial evidence. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
   Under that standard, a petitioner must show “the evidence is so compelling
   that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id.
          In 2014, Elvir-Lopez started a business in Honduras that provided
   salon services and sold cellphone merchandise, including cellphone chips
   that enabled cellular service. Soon after, a gang leader demanded that she pay
   a weekly monetary fee. When Elvir-Lopez stated she could not afford the fee,
   the gang leader instead demanded free cellphone chips for the gang members
   and free salon services for their wives. In August 2015, after Elvir-Lopez
   learned the gang was using the chips she provided to extort other business
   owners, she refused to provide more chips. In response, the gang members
   stated she would have to pay the weekly fee like other businesses like hers in
   the area or else they would kill her and her son, which they had done to others
   who would not pay. After paying the fee for about five weeks, Elvir-Lopez
   could no longer afford it, and she fled with her son to the United States.
          To be eligible for asylum, Elvir-Lopez must show that a protected
   ground was “one central reason” for her persecution. Vasquez-Guerra v.
   Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 269 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Sealed Petitioner v. Sealed
   Respondent, 829 F.3d 379, 383 (5th Cir. 2016)). The same is true for
   withholding of removal. Id. at 271 (quoting Quinteros-Hernandez v. Sessions,
   740 F. App’x 57, 58 (5th Cir. 2018)). Elvir-Lopez contends that she was
   persecuted by a gang on account of her anti-gang political opinion, a
   protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1231(b)(3)(A). However,
   substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the gang’s
   motivation for targeting Elvir-Lopez was extortion and criminality and that
   her actual or imputed political opinion was not a central reason for the gang’s

                                         2
Case: 23-60292        Document: 00517054463        Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/02/2024

                                    No. 23-60292

   actions. The gang’s targeting of Elvir-Lopez began when she had just started
   her business and preceded her refusal to continue supplying the gang with
   cellphone chips. Furthermore, her testimony indicated that the gang’s
   monetary extortion and threats after she stopped supplying the cellphone
   chips were consistent with the gang’s ongoing mistreatment of other nearby
   businesses, not just hers. She has not shown that the evidence compels the
   conclusion that her actual or imputed political opinion was or will be a central
   reason for the gang’s actions against her. See Shaikh, 588 F.3d at 864
   (upholding finding of lack of nexus where alien testified that alleged
   persecutor demanded money from all business people in the neighborhood
   and was violent with anyone who refused to pay, regardless of their religious
   affiliation); Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 772 (5th Cir. 2019)
   (upholding finding of lack of nexus to political opinion where gang continued
   to get SIM cards from store even after alien left for the United States); see
   also Martinez-De Umana v. Garland, 82 F.4th 303, 312 (5th Cir. 2023)
   (recognizing that conduct motivated by criminal intentions does not
   constitute persecution on account of a protected ground); Ontunez-Tursios v.
   Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 352-53 (5th Cir. 2002) (holding that requisite nexus
   was not shown where persecutors’ motive was economic gain rather than
   broader political struggle).
          Elvir-Lopez also contends the BIA failed to consider the issue of
   imputed political opinion. But the record reflects the BIA considered the
   issue and determined that Elvir-Lopez failed to show the requisite nexus even
   assuming that the gang attributed a political opinion to her. Because Elvir-
   Lopez has failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, she has also failed to
   satisfy her burden for withholding of removal. See Martinez-De Umana, 82
   F.4th at 312-13.
          For protection under the CAT, Elvir-Lopez was required to show
   both that (1) she more likely than not would be tortured in Honduras and

                                          3
Case: 23-60292     Document: 00517054463          Page: 4   Date Filed: 02/02/2024

                                   No. 23-60292

   (2) sufficient state action would be involved in that torture. See Martinez
   Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 228 (5th Cir. 2019). The BIA found both
   requirements lacking. On appeal, Elvir-Lopez contends that the country
   reports she submitted showed that the Honduran government acquiesced to
   torture committed by gangs. We need not reach that argument because she
   does not brief, and has thus forfeited, any argument challenging the BIA’s
   additional, dispositive conclusion that she failed to show the requisite
   likelihood of her suffering torture in Honduras. See Chambers v. Mukasey,
   520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008).
         The petition for review is DENIED.

                                        4