De Bastos v. Garland

Case: 19-60888 Document: 00515823922 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/15/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 15, 2021
No. 19-60888
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Maria Vandelice De Bastos,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A097 536 828
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Maria Vandelice de Bastos, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions this
court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her
application for asylum and withholding of removal. De Bastos alleges that
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60888 Document: 00515823922 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/15/2021
No. 19-60888
she has faced persecution and will face future persecution from a police
officer because of her membership in the particular social group of
grandmothers caring for special needs children and her imputed political
opinion of being a whistleblower against school corruption.
We review the final decision of the BIA and also consider the IJ’s
decision where it influenced the determination of the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales,
493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). We also review the factual findings of an
immigration court for substantial evidence, while legal questions are
reviewed de novo. Id. at 594.
Substantial record evidence supports the BIA’s finding that de Bastos
did not establish the requisite nexus between any past or future persecution
and her alleged membership in a particular social group to sustain her claim
for asylum. De Bastos testified that the police officer persecuted her not
because she was a grandmother of a special needs child but because de
Bastos’s complaints about her grandson’s school resulted in the police
officer’s sister losing her job. “[A] personal vendetta or desire for revenge is
not persecution on account of a protected ground.” Martinez-Manzanares v.
Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). The record evidence therefore does not compel a conclusion that
de Bastos was persecuted for being a member of the particular social group
of individuals who are grandparents to children with special needs. See
Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013).
In addition, at best, de Bastos offers only conclusional assertions “of
a generalized ‘political’ motive” for the harm she endured. I.N.S. v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482 (1992). The record and pleadings as a whole
instead reflect that the alleged persecutor’s motive was based upon personal
animus, and de Bastos points to no evidence that would compel the
conclusion that the police officer might persecute her “to any extent on
2
Case: 19-60888 Document: 00515823922 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/15/2021
No. 19-60888
account of or motivated by [her] political opinion,” imputed or otherwise.
Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002).
De Bastos also contends that the BIA did not consider fully the
country conditions report she submitted to the agency. However, that
argument is an insufficient ground for reversal. See Mikhael v. I.N.S., 115
F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir. 1997). Moreover, the BIA is not required to “address
evidentiary minutiae or write any lengthy exegesis, [but] its decision must
reflect meaningful consideration of the relevant substantial evidence
supporting the alien’s claims.” Abdel-Masieh v. I.N.S., 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th
Cir. 1996) (internal citation omitted).
In light of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the denial of de
Bastos’s application for asylum. See Zhu, 493 F.3d at 593. Because de Bastos
did not establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily has not established
eligibility for withholding of removal. See Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590,
595 (5th Cir. 2006).
The petition for review is DENIED.
3