Cesia Acosta-Alvarado v. William Barr, U. S. Atty ( 2020 )

Case: 19-60252 Document: 00515490395 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/15/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 19-60252
FILED
July 15, 2020
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
CESIA MADAHY ACOSTA-ALVARADO,
Petitioner
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A206 505 817
Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Cesia Madahy Acosta-Alvarado, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying her
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT).
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60252 Document: 00515490395 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/15/2020
No. 19-60252
When the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision without written opinion, the IJ’s
order is the final agency decision that we review. Martinez v. Mukasey, 508
F.3d 255, 257 (5th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we review the IJ’s factual findings,
including the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the CAT for substantial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th
Cir. 2005); Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). Under
the substantial-evidence standard, “this court may not overturn . . . factual
findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Gomez-Palacios
v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009). We lack jurisdiction to consider
Acosta-Alvarado’s argument that the BIA failed to conduct a reasoned analysis
of her request for withholding of removal, which she maintains allows for a
more relaxed showing of nexus than that required by the IJ because she did
not raise it before the BIA. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir.
2009); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2001).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that the two incidents
cited by Acosta-Alvarado did not rise to the level of past persecution. See
Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Morales v. Sessions,
860 F.3d 812, 816 (5th Cir. 2017). Furthermore, nothing in the record compels
the conclusion that Acosta-Alvarado’s fear that she would be persecuted based
on her prior engagement to a man who was threatened and subsequently
murdered by a criminal gang if returned to El Salvador was well-founded. See
Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 492-93 (5th Cir. 2015); see also Matter
of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 242-43 (BIA 2014). Moreover, because the IJ
conducted the requisite fact-specific, case-by-case analysis of Acosta-
Alvarado’s proposed family-based particular social groups, we decline to grant
her request for a remand. See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 235-36 (5th
Cir. 2019); Pena Oseguera v. Barr, 936 F.3d 249, 251 (5th Cir. 2019). Finally,
2
Case: 19-60252 Document: 00515490395 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/15/2020
No. 19-60252
Acosta-Alvarado’s testimony, though credible, and the documentary evidence
are too general and speculative to support CAT relief for a specific individual
and insufficient to compel reversal under the substantial evidence standard.
See Morales, 860 F.3d at 818.
Accordingly, Acosta-Alvarado’s petition for review is DENIED in part
and DISMISSED in part.
3