Martagon Cerezo v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 23-60088 Document: 00516884284 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-60088
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ September 5, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Deymer Oscar Martagon Cerezo, Clerk
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A209 311 230
______________________________
Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Deymer Oscar Martagon Cerezo, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA),
dismissing his appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of
withholding of removal.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60088 Document: 00516884284 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2023
No. 23-60088
This court reviews the BIA’s decision but considers the IJ’s decision
only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d
511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for
substantial evidence and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Id. The
substantial-evidence test “requires only that the BIA’s decision be supported
by record evidence and be substantially reasonable.” Omagah v. Ashcroft, 288
F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2002). This court will not reverse the BIA’s factual
findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Chen v.
Gonzalez, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). “The applicant has the burden
of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder
could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id.Martagon Cerezo argues that his credible testimony established that
his membership in a particular social group (PSG) consisting of his mother’s
family members was “one central reason” for the harm he fears in Mexico
and that the BIA erred in finding that he had failed to show the requisite
nexus. 1 See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019);
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).
Martagon Cerezo relies on Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944(4th Cir. 2015), to argue that he has satisfied the nexus requirement. Aside
from the fact that a decision from another circuit is not controlling on this
court, we have rejected the Fourth Circuit’s approach in Hernandez-Avalos
as “inconsistent” with the text of the immigration statute and with the
caselaw of the BIA, this court, “and the majority view of other circuits.”
_____________________
1
Martagon Cerezo also argues that the BIA erred in applying the more stringent
“one central reason” standard that applies to asylum claims when denying his claim for
withholding of removal based on nexus. He contends that the standard for showing nexus
for withholding of removal is the lower “a reason” standard. He acknowledges, however,
that this court has already rejected this argument in Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th
265, 271 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022).
2
Case: 23-60088 Document: 00516884284 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/05/2023
No. 23-60088
Berrios-Bruno v. Garland, No. 18-60276, 2021 WL 3624766 at *5 (5th Cir.
Aug. 16, 2021) (unpublished); accord Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485,
492-93 (5th Cir. 2015).
The BIA correctly found that Martagon Cerezo had failed to show that
his familial relationship would be “one central reason” for the harm he feared
in Mexico. Although the BIA acknowledged the horrible circumstance of the
kidnapping of Martagon Cerezo’s mother and two siblings and noted that
Martagon Cerezo suspected that the cartel was responsible, the BIA
emphasized that Martagon Cerezo did not know for certain who had
kidnapped his family, nor did he know why they had been targeted. Further,
the BIA noted that there was no evidence that any of his mother’s relatives
living in Mexico had been harmed in the years following her apparent
abduction. See Ramirez-Mejia, 794 F.3d at 493 (finding no persecution on
account of family status when “other members of [the petitioner’s] family,
who have remained in [the petitioner’s native country], have not faced
persecution on the basis of their membership in the family”).
Martagon Cerezo has not shown that the evidence compels the
conclusion that the BIA erred in finding that there was no nexus between his
feared future persecution and his membership in a PSG consisting of his
mother’s family members. See Gonzalez-Veliz, 938 F.3d at 224-25; Chen, 470
F.3d at 1134. Because the BIA’s finding of no nexus is supported by
substantial evidence and is dispositive, we need not address Martagon
Cerezo’s arguments related to the BIA’s finding that he failed to show a clear
probability of future persecution in Mexico based on his PSG membership.
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
The petition for review is DENIED.
3