Mejia-Carvajal v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60572 Document: 00516809668 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60572 FILED
July 5, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Ewlin Marilu Mejia-Carvajal; Lindsay Orellana-Mejia;
Said Magdiel Orellana-Mejia,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency Nos. A209 127 437,
A209 127 438, A209 127 439
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Ewlin Marilu Mejia-Carvajal, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing
her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60572 Document: 00516809668 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2023
No. 22-60572
Against Torture (CAT). (Her minor children, Lindsay Jireth Orellana-Mejia
and Said Magdiel Orellana-Mejia, are included in her application.)
Mejia contends she demonstrated the requisite nexus between her
suffered and feared harm and a protected basis. (Because she fails to
challenge being denied withholding of removal and protection under CAT,
she abandoned any challenge she may have on that basis. E.g., Soadjede v.
Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).)
We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s decision only to
the extent it influenced the BIA. E.g., Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224
(5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence; legal
conclusions, de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir.
2001). 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).
In denying asylum, the BIA determined Mejia failed to show the
requisite nexus between any past or feared harm and her claimed protected
grounds: her imputed anti-gang political opinion; and membership in a
particular social group based on her family relationship to her father. She had
the burden of establishing she suffered persecution or had a “well-founded
fear of persecution on account of” a protected ground. Cantarero-Lagos v.
Barr, 924 F.3d 145, 149 (5th Cir. 2019). Although the “protected ground
need not be the only reason for harm, it cannot be incidental, tangential,
superficial, or subordinate to another reason for harm”. Cabrera v. Sessions,
890 F.3d 153, 159 (5th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
Mejia maintains an anti-gang political opinion was imputed to her
when she refused extortion demands from gang members; but she fails to
show the gang was motivated by anything other than economic extortion.
2
Case: 22-60572 Document: 00516809668 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/05/2023
No. 22-60572
E.g., Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 769, 771–72 (5th Cir. 2019); Singh
v. Barr, 920 F.3d 255, 259 (5th Cir. 2019) (“Extortion is not a cognizable form
of persecution under immigration law.”).
Likewise, the record does not compel finding Mejia would be targeted
based on her relationship to her father. E.g., Martinez-Lopez, 943 F.3d at 769;
Cabrera, 890 F.3d at 159–60 (“To show a well-founded fear of persecution,
an alien must have subjective fear of persecution, and that fear must be
objectively reasonable.”). The record reflects: Mejia’s father entered
politics in 2010; she was not targeted by gang members until 2016; and, even
though her father is still politically active in his hometown, he has not been
physically harmed by gang members.
DENIED.
3