Garcia-Manzanares v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60403 Document: 00516698111 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
____________ Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-60403 April 3, 2023
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
Yessica Carolina Garcia-Manzanares; Jorge Manuel
Pinel-Garcia; Kendra Carolina Aguilar-Garcia;
Kenneth Fabricio Pinel-Garcia,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency Nos. A209 241 496,
A209 241 497, A209 241 498,
A209 241 499
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Yessica Carolina Garcia-Manzanares, native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60403 Document: 00516698111 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2023
No. 22-60403
her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denying her application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). (Although Garcia filed separate applications for
herself and each of her children, she described the children as riders on her
application, and the BIA treated them as such. Accordingly, her petition is
on behalf of herself and her children.)
The BIA “affirm[ed] the [IJ’s] decision for the reasons set forth by
the [IJ]”, as well as providing additional reasons for denying relief. In
considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s, to the extent, as in this instance,
it influenced the BIA), legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; factual
findings, for substantial evidence. E.g., Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d
511, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under the substantial-evidence standard,
petitioner must demonstrate “the evidence is so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion”. Chen v. Gonzales,
470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s reasonable determination
that Garcia was targeted for extortion for economic gain based on her
perceived wealth, not based on her proposed particular social groups (PSG).
E.g., Gonzalez-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019) (explaining
membership in PSG must be “at least one central reason for persecuting the
applicant” (citation omitted)). And the BIA did not err in continuing to
conclude that people who resist gang recruitment do not constitute a PSG.
E.g., Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 2016)
(approving unpublished decision holding alien’s refusal to pay bribes did not
make her member of PSG because one’s anti-gang values or antagonistic
relationship with gangs does not amount to a common immutable
characteristic).
2
Case: 22-60403 Document: 00516698111 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/03/2023
No. 22-60403
Further, as Garcia acknowledges, her contention that the nexus
standard is lower for a withholding claim is foreclosed in this circuit. E.g.,
Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 271 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142
S. Ct. 1228 (2022) (“Despite [petitioner]’s argument that withholding of
removal involves a ‘less demanding’ and ‘more relaxed’ standard than
asylum for meeting the nexus requirement, this court has held that applicants
for withholding of removal must similarly show that a protected ground,
including membership in a [PSG], was or will be at least one central reason
for persecuting the applicant.” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, the BIA did
not err in rejecting the asylum and withholding claims. See Efe v. Ashcroft,
293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002) (“Since [petitioner] does not meet the bar
for asylum, he also does not meet the standard for withholding of
deportation.”).
Finally, because Garcia fails to show she faced a likelihood of torture
in Honduras that would be inflicted with the consent or acquiescence of a
public official, she fails to make the requisite showing for CAT protection.
See Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates, 846 F.3d 806, 812 (5th Cir. 2017) (“[R]elief under
the CAT requires a two part analysis—first, is it more likely than not that the
alien will be tortured upon return to his homeland; and second, is there
sufficient state action involved in that torture”. (citation omitted) (alteration
omitted); see also Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 772–73 (5th Cir. 2019)
(substantial evidence supported finding no government acquiescence where
“the record contains reports of some Honduran authorities working with
gangs, [but] those same reports indicate that the Honduran government is
working to combat both corruption and gang violence”).
DENIED.
3