Triminio-Herrera v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 19-60913 Document: 00515808746 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-60913 April 5, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Gina Rossy Triminio-Herrera,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 373 941
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Gina Rossy Triminio-Herrera, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of
her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60913 Document: 00515808746 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2021
No. 19-60913
Against Torture (CAT). She argues that the BIA erred in finding that she
was not a member of a particular social group, that she could safely return to
Honduras, and that she would not likely be tortured if she returns to
Honduras.
This court reviews only the BIA’s decision, “unless the IJ’s decision
has some impact on the BIA’s decision.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536
(5th Cir. 2009). Whether an alien has demonstrated eligibility for asylum,
withholding of removal, or CAT relief is a factual determination that this
court reviews for substantial evidence. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134
(5th Cir. 2006); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Under the substantial evidence
standard, reversal is improper unless we decide not only that the evidence
supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it.” Chen,
470 F.3d at 1134 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted);
§ 1252(b)(4)(B).
In connection with her application for asylum, Triminio-Herrera does
not address the BIA’s finding that, even if she was a member of a cognizable
particular social group, she failed to show she suffered from past persecution.
See Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1). She also fails to address the BIA’s reasons for finding that,
even if she was a member of a cognizable particular social group, she did not
have a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Zhao v. Gonzales, 404
F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005); see also § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). Thus, she has
abandoned any challenge to those determinations. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,
324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); see also Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116,
118 (5th Cir. 1986). Because Triminio-Herrera fails to address those issues,
which are dispositive of her asylum claim, we do not need to address the
asylum arguments she raises in her petition for review. See INS v.
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976). Further, in failing to address those
findings, she does not show that the BIA’s dismissal of her asylum claim is
2
Case: 19-60913 Document: 00515808746 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2021
No. 19-60913
unsupported by substantial evidence or that the evidence compels a contrary
result. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134.
Because Triminio-Herrera fails to establish her eligibility for asylum,
she “is necessarily also unable to establish an entitlement to withholding of
removal.” Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658-59 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Finally, in connection with her CAT
claim, Triminio-Herrera does not address the BIA’s finding that she failed to
establish that a public official would acquiesce to her torture if she returns.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1), (7). Accordingly, any challenge to that finding
has been abandoned, and she has failed to carry her burden of showing
entitlement to relief under the CAT. See Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833;
§ 1208.18(a)(1), (7). The petition for review is DENIED.
3