Judis Flores-Gutierrez v. Jefferson Session ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 16-60180      Document: 00514014941         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/01/2017
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT     United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 16-60180                                 June 1, 2017
    Summary Calendar                              Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    JUDIS LISSETH FLORES-GUTIERREZ; STEVEN YOEL LARIOS-FLORES,
    Petitioners
    v.
    JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A206 845 948
    BIA No. A206 845 949
    Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Petitioners Judis Lisseth Flores-Gutierrez and her minor son, Steven
    Yoel Larios-Flores, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of
    the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their
    appeals of the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of their applications for asylum,
    withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 16-60180    Document: 00514014941     Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/01/2017
    No. 16-60180
    protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). As Petitioners do not
    address the BIA’s denial of relief under the CAT, that issue is abandoned. See
    Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 
    324 F.3d 830
    , 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). As for the
    denial of asylum and withholding of removal, we review the BIA’s factual
    findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. Lopez-
    Gomez v. Ashcroft, 
    263 F.3d 442
    , 444 (5th Cir. 2001).
    The Attorney General may grant asylum to aliens who qualify as
    refugees. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a). A refugee is a person who is outside of his or her
    country and is unable or unwilling to return because of past persecution or a
    well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his or her race, religion,
    nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. See
    8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b); Jukic v. INS, 
    40 F.3d 747
    , 749
    (5th Cir. 1994). The applicant must establish a nexus between the claimed
    persecution and one of the statutory grounds for asylum. Tamara-Gomez v.
    Gonzales, 
    447 F.3d 343
    , 349 (5th Cir. 2006). If the IJ so requests, the applicant
    must provide evidence corroborating an otherwise credible claim of
    persecution, provided such evidence is reasonably available.           8 U.S.C.
    § 1229a(c)(4)(B); Rui Yang v. Holder, 
    664 F.3d 580
    , 585-86 (5th Cir. 2011).
    Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s ruling that Petitioners failed to
    establish membership in a qualifying social group or a nexus between the
    claimed persecution and their membership in such a group. See 
    Lopez-Gomez, 263 F.3d at 444
    . Initially, Petitioners do not contest the BIA’s finding that
    they failed to provide evidence, as requested by the IJ, corroborating their
    claim to asylum, nor do they show that corroborating evidence was
    unavailable. See Rui 
    Yang, 664 F.3d at 587
    . The BIA could have denied relief
    on that basis alone. See In Re S-M-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 722, 725-26 (BIA 1997).
    2
    Case: 16-60180    Document: 00514014941     Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/01/2017
    No. 16-60180
    In any event, the two groups which Petitioners assert that they belong
    to—students who are harassed and targeted for recruitment by gangs, and
    fishermen who are targeted by gangs for recruitment or to transport drugs—
    are defined by the very persecutory conduct aimed at them and came into
    existence only as a result of that persecution. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder,
    
    685 F.3d 511
    , 518 (5th Cir. 2012); Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 215
    (BIA 2014). Petitioners could not have been persecuted on account of their
    membership in those groups. See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 
    303 F.3d 341
    ,
    352 (5th Cir. 2002). The BIA did not err in dismissing Petitioners’ claims for
    asylum based on past persecution. See 
    Lopez-Gomez, 263 F.3d at 444
    . For the
    same reason, the BIA did not err in dismissing their claims for asylum based
    on a fear of future persecution. See id.; 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(i)(A); Faddoul
    v. INS, 
    37 F.3d 185
    , 188 (5th Cir. 1994).
    Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s holding that Petitioners failed
    to establish their entitlement to asylum, see 
    Lopez-Gomez, 263 F.3d at 444
    , so,
    as a matter of law, they are unable to meet the more stringent standard for
    granting withholding of removal. See Dayo v. Holder, 
    687 F.3d 653
    , 658–59
    (5th Cir. 2012); Efe v. Ashcroft, 
    293 F.3d 899
    , 906 (5th Cir. 2002). They fail to
    show that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s denial of
    their requests for withholding of removal. See Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 
    560 F.3d 354
    , 358 (5th Cir. 2009).
    The petition for review is DENIED.
    3