Yolanda Rodriguez-Guzman v. Jefferson Sessi ( 2017 )

Case: 16-60512 Document: 00514172998 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 16-60512 September 27, 2017
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
YOLANDA ELIZABETH RODRIGUEZ-GUZMAN; LITZY GRACIELA
NUNFIO-RODRIGUEZ; JEREMY JOSE NUNFIO-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioners
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 171 547
BIA No. A208 171 548
BIA No. A208 171 549
Before JONES, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Yolanda Elizabeth Rodriguez-Guzman and her two minor children,
natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing her appeal of the Immigration
Judge’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. In
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.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: 16-60512 Document: 00514172998 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2017
No. 16-60512
that regard, Rodriguez asserts the BIA erred by ruling she was ineligible for
relief.
Denials of asylum are reviewed for substantial evidence. Zhang v.
Gonzalez, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). To succeed under the substantial-
evidence test, Rodriguez must demonstrate the evidence compels a conclusion
contrary to that of the BIA. Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th
Cir. 2009).
The Attorney General may grant asylum to a person who is “unable or
unwilling to return [to his country] ‘because of persecution or a well-founded
fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion’”. Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749
(5th Cir. 1994) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). The applicant must
demonstrate “race, religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for
persecuting the applicant”. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009)
(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(A)) (emphasis in original).
Rodriguez asserts the evidence shows she was persecuted on account of
her membership in a particular social group: small-business owners who flee
their home countries because of extortion from gangs. The evidence, however,
does not compel a finding Rodriguez suffered past persecution, or has a well-
founded fear of future persecution because she belongs to a particular social
group.
Additionally, Rodriguez has not demonstrated her proposed particular
social group is cognizable. E.g., Castillo-Enriquez v. Holder, 690 F.3d 667, 668
(5th Cir. 2012) (economic extortion not a form of persecution); Orellana-
Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012) (“risk of persecution alone
does not create a particular social group”). Our court has held “business
2
Case: 16-60512 Document: 00514172998 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/27/2017
No. 16-60512
owners subject to extortion and persons antagonistic to gangs are not protected
groups under immigration law”. Mejia v. Lynch, 633 F. App’x 269, 270 (5th
Cir. 2016) (citing Castillo-Enriquez, 690 F.3d at 668; Orellana-Monson, 685
F.3d at 522). Because Rodriguez has not shown she was or will be subject to
persecution based on her membership in a protected social group, she does not
satisfy the standard for asylum.
To obtain withholding of removal, Rodriguez must “show a higher
objective likelihood of persecution than that required for asylum”. Chen v.
Gonzalez, 470 F.3d 1131, 1138 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d
899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002); Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994)).
Because Rodriguez fails to meet the standard for asylum, her withholding-of-
removal claim necessarily fails as well. Id.
DENIED.
3