Mendoza-Erazo v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 20-60490 Document: 00516107012 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 24, 2021
No. 20-60490
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jonathan Joel Mendoza-Erazo,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A206 423 019
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jonathan Joel Mendoza-Erazo, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of
asylum and withholding of removal. He claims that he was persecuted, and
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60490 Document: 00516107012 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2021
No. 20-60490
feared future persecution, based on his membership in a particular social
group defined as “imputed homosexuality.”
Generally, this court reviews the final decision of the BIA and will only
consider the IJ’s decision where it influenced the decision of the BIA. Zhu v.
Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). Factual findings are reviewed
for substantial evidence and rulings of law de novo. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d
531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009); Zhu, 493 F.3d at 594. We review for substantial
evidence the conclusion that an alien is not eligible for asylum and
withholding of removal. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir.
2005).
To be eligible for asylum, Mendoza-Erazo must show that he is unable
or unwilling to return to his country “because of persecution or a well-
founded fear of persecution on account of,” as relevant here, “membership
in a particular social group.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see also 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1). “[P]ersecution is an extreme concept,” Arif v. Mukasey, 509
F.3d 677, 680 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted),
and “does not encompass all treatment that our society regards as unfair,
unjust, or even unlawful or unconstitutional,” Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d
590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
Mendoza-Erazo is ineligible for relief because he has not established the
requisite nexus between persecution and a protected ground. See Sharma v.
Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2009). The evidence does not establish
that he was targeted because of his imputed sexuality, see id., or that the harm
he suffered—an attempted assault and two threats over a five-year period—
constitute persecution, see Majd, 446 F.3d at 595. Because Mendoza-Erazo
failed to demonstrate his entitlement to asylum, he also failed to demonstrate
2
Case: 20-60490 Document: 00516107012 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/24/2021
No. 20-60490
his entitlement to withholding of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899,
906 (5th Cir. 2002).
The petition for review is DENIED.
3