Gaspar-Miguel v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 21-60025 Document: 00516330630 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 24, 2022
No. 21-60025 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Maria Francisca Gaspar-Miguel; Raymundo Raymundo-
Gaspar; Francisca Raymundo-Gaspar,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A206 889 197
BIA No. A206 889 198
BIA No. A206 889 199
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60025 Document: 00516330630 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2022
No. 21-60025
Maria Francisca Gaspar-Miguel and her children, Raymundo
Raymundo-Gaspar and Francisca Raymundo-Gaspar, petition for review of a
decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing the appeal
from the denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). With respect to asylum
and withholding of removal, they challenge the finding that they failed to
establish the required nexus between Gaspar-Miguel’s membership in the
articulated particular social group (PSG) of “single mothers living in
Guatemala” and the alleged past persecution and risk of future persecution.
See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). The
immigration judge (IJ) found, and the BIA agreed, that gang members
targeted Gaspar-Miguel and her child because of their vulnerability while
traveling alone, on foot, hours from home and that her status as a single
mother could not have been a reason for the attack because the criminals
would not have been aware of it. We may “consider the IJ’s decision to the
extent that it influenced the BIA.” Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th
Cir. 2009).
The petitioners contend that Gaspar-Miguel’s status as a single
mother was the reason why she and her child were travelling alone to visit her
mother and appeared vulnerable to criminals. They present no evidence to
support that contention, however. Nor do they present evidence that the
gang members were motivated by her status as a single mother, see Gonzales-
Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019); indeed, they do not dispute
that the criminals were unaware of it. The PSG was, at most, an “incidental,
tangential, superficial, or subordinate” reason for the harm. Shaikh v. Holder,
588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). The evidence would not compel a reasonable factfinder to
conclude that membership in the PSG was a central reason for the alleged
persecution, see Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004), and the
2
Case: 21-60025 Document: 00516330630 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2022
No. 21-60025
adverse nexus conclusion is dispositive of the asylum and withholding of
removal claims, see Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518. Accordingly, we do
not reach the other issues related to those claims, including whether the PSG
was cognizable. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976); Cantu-
Delgadillo v. Holder, 584 F.3d 682, 690 (5th Cir. 2009).
Next, the petitioners contend that they showed acquiescence by a
government official as required for relief under the CAT. See Tabora
Gutierrez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 496, 502-03 (5th Cir. 2021). They rely on
Gaspar-Miguel’s testimony that gang members told her they would find out
if she reported the attack to police because of police officers who belong to
the gang. The petitioners contend that the testimony shows the police have
been infiltrated by the gang and would acquiesce in their torture. However,
Gaspar-Miguel also testified that she did not report the attack because the
“police station was really far from [her] village,” not because there were gang
members on the police force. Moreover, she testified that she believed the
police would have helped her if she had reported the attack. Accordingly, the
evidence would not compel a reasonable factfinder to find consent or
acquiescence by a public official. See id. at 504-06; Revencu v. Sessions, 895
F.3d 396, 401 (5th Cir. 2018). We need not reach the question whether the
attack on Gaspar-Miguel and her child constituted torture. See Bagamasbad,
429 U.S. at 25; Cantu-Delgadillo, 584 F.3d at 690.
The petition for review is DENIED.
3