Sanchez-Betancourt v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60221 Document: 00516631930 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
February 1, 2023
No. 22-60221
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
____________
Ricardo Antonio Sanchez-Betancourt; Maria Elena
Espinoza-Salazar; Ricardo Zaid Sanchez-Espinoza,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A201 429 003
Agency No. A201 429 004
Agency No. A201 429 005
______________________________
Before Jolly, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ricardo Antoni Sanchez-Betancourt; his wife, Maria Elena Espinoza-
Salazar (Espinoza-Salazar); and their son, all natives and citizens of
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60221 Document: 00516631930 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2023
No. 22-60221
Honduras, entered the United States illegally in 2018. Sanchez-Betancourt1
seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing his appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT).
We review the BIA’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of
fact for substantial evidence. See Monsonyem v. Garland, 36 F.4th 639, 642
(5th Cir. 2022); Zhu v. Gonzalez, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007). We
review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the IJ’s decision
influenced it. See Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).
To qualify as a refugee for purposes of asylum, Sanchez-Betancourt
had to show (1) that he is outside of his country and is unable or unwilling to
return to that country because of past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution and (2) that his “race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one
central reason for the persecution.” Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511,
518 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks, citation, and emphasis
omitted); see § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224
(5th Cir. 2019). Contrary to Sanchez-Betancourt’s unsupported assertions,
the testimony in this matter referenced only, and repeatedly, the criminal
pecuniary goals motivating the gang members who accosted Sanchez-
Betancourt at his home. See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 351
(5th Cir. 2002). A reasonable factfinder thus would not be compelled to
reach a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination of the absence of a
nexus between the criminal extortion efforts by the gang and a protected
_____________________
1
Because Sanchez-Betancourt is the lead petitioner and his wife’s and son’s claims
for immigration relief are derivative of his claim, we refer only to Sanchez-Betancourt
unless otherwise specified.
2
Case: 22-60221 Document: 00516631930 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/01/2023
No. 22-60221
ground under the law. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009);
see also Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009). Because such a
nexus is an essential element of an asylum claim, Sanchez-Betancourt’s
failure to show error in the BIA’s nexus determination is fatal to his asylum
claim. See Vasquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 265, 269 (5th Cir. 2021),
cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022). We therefore do not consider his
remaining arguments as to asylum. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25
(1976) (per curiam).
Sanchez-Betancourt challenges the BIA’s denial of withholding of
removal, arguing that withholding has a more relaxed showing for nexus.
According to Sanchez-Betancourt, the BIA therefore committed legal error
by failing to “fully analyze” his application for withholding. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(A). Although he acknowledges that we have held that an
applicant who fails to meet the less stringent standard of proof required for
asylum relief “is necessarily also unable to establish an entitlement to
withholding of removal,” he raises the challenge to preserve it for further
review. Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658-59 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
As to the BIA’s denial of CAT relief, Sanchez-Betancourt had to
“establish that it is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if
removed to the proposed country of removal.” Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17
F.4th 586, 597 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)) (5th Cir. 2021). The
uncontradicted record evidence shows that the police expressed the intention
to investigate Sanchez-Betancourt’s report of the extortion attempts. The
failure of the police to arrest or prosecute any individual for the offense is
“better explained” by the fact Sanchez-Betancourt and his wife were
unavailable to assist in the investigation because they left the area and, in any
event, could not describe the perpetrators. See Tabora Gutierrez v. Garland,
12 F.4th 496, 504 (5th Cir. 2021).
3
Case: 22-60221 Document: 00516631930 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/01/2023
No. 22-60221
Although the police also suggested to Sanchez-Betancourt that he
should relocate because such cases are difficult to resolve, limited
governmental resources and a government’s inability to provide total
security for its citizens do not “rise to the level of state action required for
relief under the Convention Against Torture.” Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales,
447 F.3d 343, 351 (5th Cir. 2006); see Tabora Gutierrez, 12 F.4th at 504;
Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 494 (5th Cir. 2015). The country
reports noting incidents of police corruption are likewise insufficient to
compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination that Sanchez-
Betancourt failed to show “willful blindness” by the Honduran government.
Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 772 (5th Cir. 2019). Substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. See Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th
at 597; Wang, 569 F.3d at 537.
The petition for review is DENIED.
4