Menocal-Bardales v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 21-60717 Document: 00516803474 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-60717
Summary Calendar FILED
June 28, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Normandina Yolanda Menocal-Bardales; Ely Lizbeth Clerk
Bardales-Menocal,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A208 150 592
Agency No. A208 150 593
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Normandina Yolanda Menocal-Bardales, a native and citizen of
Honduras, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge
(IJ) denying her application for asylum and denying protection under the
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60717 Document: 00516803474 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2023
No. 21-60717
Convention Against Torture (CAT). 1 “We have authority to review only the
decision of the BIA, not the IJ, unless the IJ’s decision influenced the BIA’s
decision.” Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). We review
the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence, reversing only if “the evidence
is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary
conclusion.” Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 396 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Menocal-Bardales argues that neither the IJ nor the BIA gave an
adequate explanation for their respective decisions denying asylum. We
disagree. Both decisions sufficiently “reflect meaningful consideration of the
relevant substantial evidence.” Abdel-Masieh v. U.S. I.N.S., 73 F.3d 579, 585
(5th Cir. 1996). On the merits, Menocal-Bardales does not challenge the
BIA’s determinations that she failed to establish past persecution and failed
to establish a nexus between the harm alleged and her asserted particular
social groups. She has therefore abandoned any such claims, and we need not
address them. Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 n.1 (5th Cir. 2013).
Regarding her CAT claim, Menocal-Bardales fails to show that the
evidence compels the conclusion that she more likely than not would be
tortured if repatriated. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1140-41 (5th Cir.
2006); Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015). And while
Menocal-Bardales again argues that the IJ and the BIA did not sufficiently
analyze the evidence relating to the possibility of future torture, we again
disagree. Both decisions “reflect meaningful consideration” of the evidence
related to Menocal-Bardales’s CAT claim. Abdel-Masieh, 73 F.3d at 585. The
petition for review is DENIED.
1
Menocal-Bardales’s minor daughter is a derivative applicant on the application.
2