Puac Puac v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 20-61078 Document: 00515993771 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/25/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 25, 2021
No. 20-61078
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Israel Geronimo Puac Puac,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A200 221 868
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Israel Geronimo Puac Puac, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying
his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-61078 Document: 00515993771 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/25/2021
No. 20-61078
Against Torture (CAT). Puac Puac contends that the BIA erred in its
conclusion that his proposed particular social groups (PSGs)—Guatemalans
who have lived in the United States, imputed American citizens, and police
witnesses—were not legally cognizable. He also argues that the BIA erred in
its conclusion that he was not eligible for relief under the CAT, urging that
he would be tortured by gang members if he returned to Guatemala and that
the Guatemalan government would acquiesce in his torture.
We review factual findings under the substantial evidence standard
and legal questions de novo. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517-18
(5th Cir. 2012). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may not reverse
the BIA’s factual findings unless “the evidence was so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d
531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009). Among the factual findings that we review for
substantial evidence is the conclusion that an alien is not eligible for
withholding of removal and for relief under the CAT. Chen v. Gonzales, 470
F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
Puac Puac asserts that he would likely be persecuted in Guatemala on
account of his membership in the proposed PSGs of (1) Guatemalans who
have lived in the United States, and (2) imputed American citizens, because
people would perceive him as wealthy. But substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s decision that Puac Puac did not establish that these two proposed
PSGs are particular or socially visible groups; these proposed PSGs are
exceedingly broad, encompass a diverse cross section of society, and lack the
required social visibility. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 521-22. Puac
Puac has proffered a third proposed PSG—police witnesses—but this court
has declined to recognize such a PSG in similar cases, and Puac Puac has not
offered any compelling grounds to distinguish those matters. See Hernandez-
De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786-87 (5th Cir. 2016).
2
Case: 20-61078 Document: 00515993771 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/25/2021
No. 20-61078
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s decision that Puac Puac
failed to show that it was “more likely than not that he will be tortured if he
is removed to his home country.” Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th
Cir. 2006). Puac Puac contends that he will be tortured with the
government’s acquiescence if returned to Guatemala. But Puac Puac’s own
testimony indicated that on the sole occasion he reported gang violence
against him, the police took a report and later arrested one of the
perpetrators. Puac Puac has thus failed to establish that he would be tortured
“by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
official or other person acting in an official capacity.” Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates,
846 F.3d 806, 812 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). A government’s mere inability to provide its citizens with
complete protection from criminals does not amount to acquiescence. See
Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 229 (5th Cir. 2019).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
3