Rodriguez-Hernandez v. Garland

Case: 22-60402 Document: 00516734567 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
May 2, 2023
No. 22-60402
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
Juan Rodriguez-Hernandez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A201 143 310
______________________________
Before Jolly, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Juan Rodriguez-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) dismissal of his
appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). His withholding of removal claim is based on membership
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60402 Document: 00516734567 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2023
No. 22-60402
in the proposed particular social group of landowners in Mexico who are
targeted by cartels.
We review the BIA’s decision and will consider the IJ’s underlying
decision only if it impacted the BIA’s decision. See Sharma v. Holder, 729
F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Findings of fact, including the denial of
withholding of removal and CAT protection, are reviewed under the
substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th
Cir. 2006). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may not reverse a
factual finding unless the evidence “compels” such a reversal—i.e., the
evidence must be “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a
contrary conclusion.” Id. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Sharma,
729 F.3d at 411.
In support of his withholding contention on review, Rodriguez-
Hernandez points to only two specific instances of harm committed by gangs
to landowners—the murder of his landowning neighbor who refused to pay
extortion demands, as well as the theft of his landowning brother’s vehicle.
These instances taken together do not compel the conclusion that he was
persecuted or will face persecution because he owns land. See Chen, 470 F.3d
at 1138. Further weighing against his withholding of removal claim,
Rodriguez Hernandez’s family members in Mexico who own land have not
faced harm by cartels. Rodriguez-Hernandez similarly failed to show that the
record compels the conclusion that he will more likely than not face torture
if returned to Mexico because he, again, only points to the acts committed
against his neighbor and brother without elaboration. See Chen, 470 F.3d at
1138-39.
Accordingly, Rodriguez-Hernandez’s petition for review is
DENIED.
2