Diaz-Barriga v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 20-60459 Document: 00515859034 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-60459 May 12, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
David Diaz-Barriga,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 549 799
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
David Diaz-Barriga, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court
to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily
affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application
for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60459 Document: 00515859034 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2021
No. 20-60459
(CAT). Diaz-Barriga asserts generally that the IJ erred by determining that
he had not established a well-founded fear of future persecution based on a
protected ground (i.e., his political opinion) and that he had not shown that
he would be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, the Mexican
government if he returned to Mexico.
We review the BIA’s 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 withholding of removal and relief under the CAT. Zhang v.
Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Under this standard, “this court
may not overturn the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a
contrary conclusion.” Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir.
2009) (citation omitted).
Regarding a well-founded fear of future persecution necessary to
establish withholding of removal, Diaz-Barriga testified that he is not
politically active in Mexico and that he was attacked and robbed by two
unknown individuals, who mentioned nothing regarding his political opinion
during the attack. Thus, the IJ’s conclusion that there was a lack of nexus
between the alleged persecution and the protected ground is supported by
substantial evidence. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.
1996); see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2). Further, because Diaz-Barriga’s
claim that he will be tortured if he returns to Mexico is entirely baseless, the
record does not compel the conclusion that he will, more likely than not, be
subjected to torture if removed to Mexico. See Bah v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 348,
351-52 (5th Cir. 2003); see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
2