Cisneros-Saravia v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60448 Document: 00516693341 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
March 29, 2023
No. 22-60448
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
____________
Evelin Beatriz Cisneros-Saravia; Roni Odir Cisneros;
Nayely Stefany Cisneros; Karla Beatriz Cisneros,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency Nos. A209 076 568, A209 076 569,
A209 076 570, A209 076 571
______________________________
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Evelin Beatriz Cisneros-Saravia and her three children, Roni Odir
Cisneros, Nayely Stefany Cisneros, and Karla Beatriz Cisneros, natives and
citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal and affirming the decision of the
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60448 Document: 00516693341 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2023
No. 22-60448
Immigration Judge (IJ) denying them asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 1 We review the
BIA’s legal conclusions de novo, but its factual findings for substantial
evidence. Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786 (5th Cir. 2016);
Chen v. Gonzalez, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). We review the decision
of the BIA, considering the IJ’s decision only to the extent it impacted that
of the BIA. Id. at 785.
For purposes of review, the BIA presumed Cisneros-Saravia’s
credibility. The agency nonetheless determined that the record
demonstrated that the perpetrators’ motive for their extortion demands was
primarily criminal and financial in nature. The BIA therefore concluded that
she failed to show the nexus between the harm and a protected category as
required for asylum. Cisneros-Saravia’s vague contentions, unsupported by
citation to the record, that the gang targeted her because she might “be able
to assist them” fail to compel a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA. See
Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 492-93 (5th Cir. 2015); Chen, 470 F.3d
at 1134; Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 351 (5th Cir. 2002).
Because a nexus between the harm and a protected ground is an essential
element of an asylum claim, Cisneros-Saravia’s failure to show error in the
BIA’s nexus determination is fatal to her asylum claim. See Vazquez-Guerra
v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 265, 269 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228
(2022). We therefore do not consider her remaining arguments as to asylum.
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
Cisneros-Saravia challenges the agency’s denial of withholding of
removal as well, arguing that withholding has a more relaxed nexus standard
_____________________
1
Because Cisneros-Saravia is the lead petitioner and her children are riders on her
application and derivative beneficiaries of her asylum application, we refer only to
Cisneros-Saravia.
2
Case: 22-60448 Document: 00516693341 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/29/2023
No. 22-60448
than asylum. Under this court’s precedent, however, Cisneros-Saravia’s
failure to meet the less stringent standard of proof required for asylum relief,
renders her “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); see Vazquez-Guerra,
7 F.4th at 271 (rejecting the argument that withholding has a “more relaxed
standard” on the nexus issue).
As to CAT relief, Cisneros-Saravia had to “establish that it is more
likely than not that [s]he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed
country of removal.” Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 597 (quoting
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)) (5th Cir. 2021). We have defined torture as “‘any
act by which severe pain or suffering . . . is intentionally inflicted on a person’
by or with the acquiescence of a public official for informational, punitive,
coercive, or discriminatory purposes.” Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th at 597 (quoting
8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1)). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
conclusion that the single extortion demand, followed by no further demands
or threats, was insufficient to demonstrate that it was more likely than not
that Cisneros-Saravia would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. See
Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th at 597; Hernandez-De La Cruz, 819 F.3d at 786.
Cisneros-Saravia’s unsupported and speculative contentions regarding
emotional distress and the violence in El Salvador generally are insufficient
to compel a conclusion to the contrary. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. Her
assertion, unsupported by record citation, that she submitted evidence of
government corruption likewise fails to compel a conclusion of either state
involvement or acquiescence. See Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 772
(5th Cir. 2019); Ramirez-Mejia, 794 F.3d at 494; Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales,
447 F.3d 343, 351 (5th Cir. 2006).
The petition for review is DENIED.
3