Court Opinion

ID: 9662436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:08:40.058488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:28.752798
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60056        Document: 00516870007             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/23/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-60056
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                August 23, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Francisco Alberto Abreu Velandia,                                                  Clerk

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A087 617 036
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Francisco Alberto Abreu Velandia, a native and citizen of Venezuela,
   petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
   (BIA) upholding the denial of deferral of removal under the Convention
   Against Torture (CAT). He argues that his CAT claim did not receive full

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60056      Document: 00516870007          Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/23/2023

                                    No. 23-60056

   and fair consideration because the BIA failed to adequately consider key
   evidence.
          We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s
   decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Aviles-Tavera v. Garland,
   22 F.4th 478, 482 (5th Cir. 2022). De novo review applies to the BIA’s legal
   determinations, “including whether the Board applied an inappropriate
   standard or failed to make necessary findings.” Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d
   284, 288 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The
   BIA’s factual determination that an individual is not eligible for CAT relief
   is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470
   F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under that standard, the petitioner “has the
   burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable
   factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id.
          In support of his argument, Abreu Velandia points to several pieces of
   evidence, including a written report by Patricia Andrade; the expert
   testimony of Brian Fonseca; the past persecution against Abreu Velandia and
   his mother that warranted the earlier granting of asylum in the United States;
   evidence regarding the Collectives; the ties of Abreu Velandia’s family to
   former Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez and the political party
   Accion Democratica; and the likelihood that Abreu Velandia would be
   detained involuntarily in the government’s rehabilitation program.
          As an initial matter, the Government contends that Abreu Velandia
   did not exhaust the argument that he could be tortured because of his family’s
   political ties. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Abreu Velandia raised the argument
   in the BIA sufficiently to put the BIA on notice of the issue. See Abubaker
   Abushagif v. Garland, 15 F.4th 323, 333 (5th Cir. 2021). Thus, we consider it
   here. See id.; § 1252(d)(1).

                                         2
Case: 23-60056      Document: 00516870007          Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/23/2023

                                    No. 23-60056

          The BIA is not required to “write an exegesis on every contention”
   but must consider the issues raised before it and provide a decision
   “sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and
   thought and not merely reacted.” Ghotra, 912 F.3d at 290 (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted). The BIA’s decision reflects that the relevant
   substantial evidence supporting Abreu Velandia’s claims was meaningfully
   considered. See Ghotra, 912 F.3d at 290.
          Additionally, the BIA’s conclusion that Abreu Velandia failed to meet
   the standard for protection under the CAT is supported by substantial
   evidence. While there was evidence of potential scenarios that could result
   in Abreu Velandia’s suffering torture by, or with the acquiescence of, the
   Venezuelan government, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that
   it is more likely than not that any of those scenarios will occur. See Chen, 470
   F.3d at 1140-41; Aviles-Tavera, 22 F.4th at 486.
          Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

                                          3