Contreras-Gomez v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60647 Document: 00516889145 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/08/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60647
Summary Calendar
FILED
September 8, 2023
____________
Lyle W. Cayce
Maria Del Carmen Contreras-Gomez; Marla Velasquez-
Contreras,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency Nos. A209 840 287, A209 840 288
______________________________
Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Maria del Carmen Contreras-Gomez and her minor daughter, Marla
Naomi Velasquez-Contreras, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing
an appeal from a denial by the immigration judge (“IJ”) of Contreras-
Gomez’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60647 Document: 00516889145 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/08/2023
No. 22-60647
Convention against Torture (“CAT”). 1 We review denials of asylum,
withholding, and CAT claims for substantial evidence. Chen v. Gonzales, 470
F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, we may not disturb the
BIA’s decision unless the evidence “compels” a contrary conclusion.
Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). We consider the decision of the IJ
only insofar as it influences the BIA’s decision. Id.To establish eligibility for asylum, Contreras-Gomez must prove that
she is unable or unwilling to return to El Salvador “because of persecution or
a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Sharma v.
Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(42)(A)).
Contreras-Gomez devotes most of her brief to arguments that she
experienced persecution, that she has a well-founded fear of future
persecution, and that she is a member of a particular “gender-based social
group within the specific context of Salvadoran society.” As well, Contreras-
Gomez contends that the vacatur of Matter of A-B-, 21 I & N Dec. 316 (U.S.
Att’y Gen. 2018) (A-B- I), by Matter of A-B-, 28 I & N Dec. 307 (U.S. Att’y
Gen. 2021) (A-B- III), requires remand to the IJ for consideration of her
particular social group, although the BIA specifically did not rely on the IJ’s
reasoning under A-B- I in affirming the IJ’s decision. As to nexus, on which
the BIA based its decision, Contreras-Gomez incorrectly asserts that she has
established a particular social group and thus a nexus between the harm, past
and feared, and a protected ground. As well, she observes, without briefing
_____________________
1
Because Contreras-Gomez’s minor daughter is a rider on and derivative
beneficiary of her mother’s application for relief, we refer herein only to Contreras-Gomez.
2
Case: 22-60647 Document: 00516889145 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/08/2023
No. 22-60647
any argument on the point, that, to show a nexus, she must only show that a
protected ground is “at least one central reason.” § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i);
Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518.
Her conclusory assertions are insufficient to compel a result different
than the BIA’s determination that she failed to establish the requisite nexus
between the harm and a protected ground. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see Vazquez-
Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 270 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct.
1228 (2022); Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. Contreras-Gomez’s contentions
regarding the elements of her asylum claim other than nexus likewise do not
compel the conclusion that her membership in her newly asserted and
vaguely defined “gender-based social group within the specific context of
Salvadoran society” was a central reason for the harm she experienced.
See § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Vazquez-Guerra, 7 F.4th at 270.
Because a nexus between the harm and a protected ground is an
essential element of asylum and withholding claims, see Vazquez-Guerra,
7 F.4th at 269, we do not consider Contreras-Gomez’s remaining arguments
as to the other elements of an asylum claim. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S.
24, 25 (1976). Because Contreras-Gomez failed to establish eligibility for
asylum, she necessarily also cannot meet the requirements for withholding of
removal. See Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 401 (5th Cir. 2021); Orellana-
Monson, 685 F.3d at 518.
In addition, substantial evidence, including the exhibits upon which
Contreras-Gomez relies, supports the agency’s conclusion that Contreras-
Gomez failed to show that the Government of El Salvador participated in or
acquiesced to the gang’s criminal activities, or would do so in the future were
Contreras-Gomez returned to El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1);
Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 772–73 (5th Cir. 2019); Martinez
Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 228 (5th Cir. 2019); Qorane v. Barr, 919
3
Case: 22-60647 Document: 00516889145 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/08/2023
No. 22-60647
F.3d 904, 911 (5th Cir. 2019). Contreras-Gomez has thus also failed to make
the required showing for relief under the CAT. See § 1208.18(a)(1); Martinez
Manzanares, 925 F.3d at 228.
The petition for review is DENIED.
4