eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2022-07

Paiz Sorto v. Garland ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 19-60032     Document: 00516397723         Page: 1     Date Filed: 07/18/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 18, 2022
No. 19-60032
Summary Calendar                           Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Maria Sebastiana Paiz Sorto; Darlyn Margarita
Argueta Paiz,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A209 294 337
Agency No. A209 294 338
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Maria Sebastiana Paiz Sorto and her minor daughter, Darlyn
Margarita Argueta Paiz, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’s decision affirming, without opinion, an order of 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60032      Document: 00516397723          Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/18/2022
No. 19-60032
Judge (IJ) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). To the extent the
petitioners challenge the BIA’s use of the summary affirmance procedure
provided by
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.1
    (e)(4), we lack jurisdiction to consider the
unexhausted claim. See Martinez-Guevara v. Garland,
    27 F.4th 353
    , 359-61 &
n.9 (5th Cir. 2022). Given the BIA’s summary affirmance disposition, we
review the IJ’s factual findings for substantial evidence. See Zhang v.
Gonzales,
    432 F.3d 339
    , 344 (5th Cir. 2005); Soadjede v. Ashcroft,
    324 F.3d 830
    , 831-32 (5th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that the MS-13
gang’s threats were motivated by a desire to increase the wealth of the
organization by extorting family-owned business like the petitioners’ and, as
such, their membership in the proposed family-based particular social group
was incidental, tangential, or subordinate to those motives. See, e.g., Ramirez-
Mejia v. Lynch,
    794 F.3d 485
    , 493 (5th Cir. 2015); Thuri v. Ashcroft,
    380 F.3d 788
    , 792-93 (5th Cir. 2004); Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft,
    303 F.3d 341
    , 350
(5th Cir. 2002). Because the nexus issue is dispositive of the petitioners’
asylum and withholding of removal claims, see Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344;
Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland,
    7 F.4th 265
    , 270-71 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied,
    142 S. Ct. 1228
     (2022), this court need not reach their arguments related to
persecution and whether the government of El Salvador was able and willing
to control their persecutors. See INS v. Bagamasbad,
    429 U.S. 24
    , 25 (1976).
Regarding their CAT claim, the petitioners have failed to produce
evidence that would compel a conclusion that the government of El Salvador
would acquiesce in their torture. See Chen v. Gonzales,
    470 F.3d 1131
    , 1138-
39 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Martinez Manzanares v. Barr,
    925 F.3d 222
    , 229
(5th Cir. 2019); Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales,
    447 F.3d 343
    , 351 (5th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED IN PART and
DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jurisdiction.
2