Banegas v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 22-60155 Document: 00516576028 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-60155 December 13, 2022
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Carla Patricia Banegas; Rixi Elizabeth Valdez-Banegas,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A209 302 484
Agency No. A209 302 485
Before Jolly, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Carla Patricia Banegas, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the
United States illegally with her daughter Rixi in 2016. She petitions for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing
her appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum,
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.
Case: 22-60155 Document: 00516576028 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2022
No. 22-60155
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT).
On review of an order of the BIA, this court examines “the BIA’s
decision and only consider[s] the IJ’s decision to the extent that it influenced
the BIA.” Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). Because the
BIA agreed with the IJ’s analysis and conclusions, this court reviews both
decisions. See id.We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence, and we
will not reverse such findings unless the petitioner shows that “the evidence
was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.”
Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2009). Among the findings
that this court reviews for substantial evidence are the factual conclusions
that an alien is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under
the CAT. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
Banegas argues that she is entitled to asylum and withholding of
removal because she has demonstrated past persecution and a well-founded
fear of future persecution based on a protected ground. Her counseled brief
does not, however, adequately address the BIA’s sole reason for denying her
asylum claim (i.e., her failure to show that the Honduran government would
be unable or unwilling to protect her from harm).
Because Banegas fails to meaningfully address the BIA’s basis for
denying her application for asylum, she has abandoned the issue for failure to
adequately brief it. See Parada-Orellana v. Garland, 21 F.4th 887, 892 (5th
Cir. 2022).
Banegas argues that she is eligible for CAT relief because the
government in Honduras will acquiesce in her torture by the gang member
who sexually assaulted her daughter. Though Banegas complains that the
police in Honduras “were of no help and basically did nothing” after her
2
Case: 22-60155 Document: 00516576028 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/13/2022
No. 22-60155
daughter was sexually assaulted, her own testimony contradicts this
statement. Before the IJ, Banegas testified that she was able to report her
daughter’s sexual assault to the police. The police took the report and sent
Rixi to be evaluated by a forensic doctor. The police also searched for Rixi’s
attacker. Further, when Banegas asked the police to drop the charges after
receiving death threats from her daughter’s attacker, the police refused,
stating that it was their responsibility to proceed with the investigation of the
case.
Though the police were unable to apprehend her daughter’s attacker,
this is insufficient to show that the government would acquiesce in Banegas’s
torture if she were removed to Honduras. See Martinez Manzanares v. Barr,
925 F.3d 222, 229 (5th Cir. 2019); see also Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447
F.3d 343, 351 (5th Cir. 2006). The BIA reasonably found that Banegas was
not entitled to CAT protection because she had failed to show that the
Honduran government would acquiesce in her torture. See Wang, 569 F.3d
at 537.
The petition for review is DENIED.
3