eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2023-08

Navarro Garcia v. Garland ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 22-60552        Document: 00516850748             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/08/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
____________                                       Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-60552                               August 8, 2023
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
____________                                      Clerk
Francisco Navarro Garcia; Rosa Isela De La Fuente De
Hoyos; Demian Francisco Navarro De La Fuente,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency Nos. A206 607 310,
A206 607 311, A206 607 370
______________________________
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Petitioners Francisco Navarro Garcia, Rosa Isela De La Fuente, and
Demian Francisco Navarro De La Fuente are natives and citizens of Mexico.
They petition us to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) to uphold a denial of (1) asylum, (2) withholding of removal, and (3)
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60552      Document: 00516850748          Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/08/2023
No. 22-60552
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Navarro Garcia,
as the lead petitioner, claimed persecution based on political opinion and
membership in a particular social group (PSG).
We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s
decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. See Gjetani v. Barr,
    968 F.3d 393
    , 396 (5th Cir. 2020). The BIA’s factual determinations are reviewed for
substantial evidence. Chen v. Gonzales,
    470 F.3d 1131
    , 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). A
petitioner must show that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable
factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion. Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch,
    794 F.3d 485
    , 489 (5th Cir. 2015). We do not consider issues that the BIA deemed
to have been waived by the petitioners on appeal. See Santos-Alvarado v. Barr,
    967 F.3d 428
    , 440 n.13 (5th Cir. 2020).
The record does not compel a conclusion that the kidnappings within
Navarro Garcia’s family were motivated by either political animus or his
membership in a PSG. See Ramirez-Mejia,
    794 F.3d at 493
    . Economic
extortion does not constitute persecution based on a protected ground. See
    id.
     Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that petitioners
have not established a well-founded fear of persecution in Mexico, given that
Navarro Garcia’s siblings have remained in Mexico unharmed. Navarro
Garcia maintained his government job and stayed in Mexico unharmed for
about eight months after his father’s death, and he twice returned to Mexico
unharmed. See Gjetani, 968 F.3d at 399.
Petitioners also assert due process violations, but they fail to
adequately brief the contentions: They have not adequately identified any
arguments that the BIA failed to consider or why
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.13
    (b)(1)
would apply when there was no finding by the immigration judge or BIA that
past persecution based on account of a protected ground was established. See
Chambers v. Mukasey,
    520 F.3d 445
    , 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that
2
Case: 22-60552      Document: 00516850748          Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/08/2023
No. 22-60552
petitioners waive issues that they do not adequately brief). To the extent the
Petitioners seek to attack the merits of the conclusion that they failed to
establish a well-founded fear of persecution, their contention is merely
cloaked in the “constitutional garb” of due process and fails for the reasons
discussed above. See Hadwani v. Gonzales,
    445 F.3d 798
    , 801 (5th Cir. 2006)
(citation omitted).
Petitioners have failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum and thus
have accordingly failed to satisfy their burden for withholding of removal. See
Gjetani, 968 F.3d at 399-400. Also, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
conclusion that Petitioners failed to establish the requisite likelihood of
torture for protection under the CAT for the same reasons that they have
failed to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.
The petition for review is DENIED.
3