Ayala-Flores v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60635 Document: 00516795328 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
June 21, 2023
No. 22-60635
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
____________
Rafael Antonio Ayala-Flores,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A206 801 476
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Rafael Antonio Ayala-Flores, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing
his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) ordering him removed
and denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60635 Document: 00516795328 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2023
No. 22-60635
We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s ruling only to the
extent it influenced that of the BIA. E.g., Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863
(5th Cir. 2009). Factual determinations that an alien is ineligible for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT protection are reviewed for substantial
evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Under this
standard, we may not disturb the BIA’s decision unless the evidence
“compels” a contrary conclusion. Id. (emphasis in original) (citation
omitted).
For his asylum claim, Ayala had the burden of showing he suffered
past-persecution or had “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of”
a protected ground. Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 360 (5th Cir. 2014)
(citation omitted). In this context, “on account of” means the protected
ground “was or will be at least one central reason” for the persecution. Id.(citation omitted).
Ayala maintains a man believed to have killed his father threatened
Ayala in response to his filing a police report regarding the murder.
Assuming this amounted to persecution, Ayala fails to demonstrate the
threats were sufficiently related to a protected ground. Rather, the record
supports the BIA’s finding that the man was motivated by retaliation against
Ayala for filing the report and to avoid prosecution. Substantial evidence
therefore supports the BIA’s finding Ayala failed to show the requisite nexus
for asylum. See id at 364.
Because Ayala fails to establish his eligibility for asylum, he cannot
meet the higher burden for withholding of removal. E.g., Dayo v. Holder, 687
F.3d 653, 658–59 (5th Cir. 2012). Further, because his failure to demonstrate
the requisite nexus is dispositive as to asylum and withholding of removal, we
need not address his remaining arguments concerning those forms of relief.
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and
2
Case: 22-60635 Document: 00516795328 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/21/2023
No. 22-60635
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
Finally, he has not shown that the evidence compels a finding he
would more likely than not be tortured with governmental acquiescence if
repatriated; therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denying CAT
relief. See Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017).
DENIED.
3