Rojas Alameda v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 19-60531 Document: 00516124483 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 9, 2021
No. 19-60531
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Ibisaias I. Rojas Alameda,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A205 340 756
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ibisaias I. Rojas Alameda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions us
for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding the
denial of his asylum claims. Rojas Alameda testified that he was kidnapped
and beaten because of the criminal activities of his uncle. The Immigration
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60531 Document: 00516124483 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2021
No. 19-60531
Judge held that Rojas Alameda was persecuted but could not show a nexus
between potential membership in a particular social group. The Immigration
Judge further found that Rojas Alameda could not prove relocation within
Mexico would be unreasonable. Withholding of Removal was denied because
it has a higher standard than asylum, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture was denied because Rojas Alameda could not show that he
would more likely than not be tortured. We review decisions of an
Immigration Judge for substantial evidence, only reversing when the
evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d
194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).
We are not compelled to find that Rojas Alameda has proven each of
the elements of his past persecution asylum claim. The second asylum
element is that particular social group membership “was or will be at least
one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see Sealed Petitioner v. Sealed Respondent, 829 F.3d 379, 383
(5th Cir. 2016). The Immigration Judge’s ruling that the reason for Rojas
Alameda’s persecution was criminal activity is supported by the record and
our caselaw. Vasquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 270 (5th Cir. 2021)
petition for cert. filed (U.S. Oct. 27, 2021) (No. 21-632); Ramirez-Mejia v.
Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015). Analysis of the other elements of
this claim is unnecessary. INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976).
We are not compelled to find that Rojas Alameda has proven a fear of
future persecution asylum claim. First, his argument that he is entitled to a
presumption of future persecution is incorrect because all the past
persecution elements were not first established. Second, the record supports
the finding that the motivations of Rojas Alameda’s kidnappers were
personal and criminal in nature. See Ramirez-Mejia, 794 F.3d at 493.
2
Case: 19-60531 Document: 00516124483 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/09/2021
No. 19-60531
We are not compelled to find that Rojas Alameda has proven the
elements of a Convention Against Torture claim. First, he argues that the
Immigration Judge did not consider evidence of his kidnapping as past
torture, but the opinion states this incident was not past torture. Second, he
asserts he could not relocate to avoid torture because his family members
were kidnapped after the same period of time. The Immigration Judge held
that this second kidnapping did not involve Rojas Alameda or indicate that
he remained in danger and this is a reasonable reading of the evidence. Third,
some evidence appears to show widespread human rights violations or a
willful blindness to torture on the part of the Mexican government, but
general conditions of violence do not establish that a specific applicant will
be tortured. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1141-42 (5th Cir. 2006).
PETITION DENIED.
3