Munoz v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60675 Document: 00516788877 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-60675 June 15, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Heidy Guillermina Munoz,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A206 873 970
______________________________
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Heidy Guillermina Munoz Portales (Munoz) petitions for review of
the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her
appeal. Munoz argues that she was entitled to asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief via the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60675 Document: 00516788877 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2023
No. 22-60675
This court applies the substantial evidence standard to the
“conclusion that an alien is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture.” Zhang v. Gonzales, 432
F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
“To succeed on an application for asylum, an applicant must show that she
is unable or unwilling to return to and avail herself of the protection of her
home country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution
on account of race, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion.” Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 401 (5th Cir. 2021)
(internal quotations, brackets, and ellipses omitted). Munoz argues that she
was a member of a particular social group in the form of Honduran business
owners susceptible to extortion. However, we have rejected similar proposed
particular social groups based on economic extortion. See Garcia v. Holder,
756 F.3d 885, 890 (5th Cir. 2014). Thus, Munoz has failed to show any error
in the denial of her asylum claim. Having failed to satisfy the standard for
asylum, she cannot meet the “higher standard” for withholding of removal.
See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
Munoz also argues that she is entitled to relief under the CAT,
pointing to evidence of generalized police corruption and gang violence and
the failure of police to investigate her brother’s shooting successfully. The
BIA concluded that Munoz did not make the requisite showing. Munoz has
failed to point to any evidence in the record that compels a contrary
conclusion. See, e.g., Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 228-29 (5th
Cir. 2019); see also Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1142 (5th Cir. 2006).
Therefore, her CAT claim fails as well.
The petition for review is DENIED.
2