Cruz-Guevara v. Garland

Case: 23-60007 Document: 00516792919 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-60007
Summary Calendar
FILED
June 20, 2023
____________
Lyle W. Cayce
Maria Dilcia Cruz-Guevara, Clerk
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A206 803 137
______________________________
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Maria Dilcia Cruz-Guevara, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
dismissing her appeal from a decision of an Immigration Judge ordering her
removed and denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60007 Document: 00516792919 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2023
No. 23-60007
the denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT claims for substantial evidence.
Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Pursuant to this
standard, we may not disturb the BIA’s decision unless the evidence
“compels” a contrary conclusion. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Cruz-Guevara has not met this standard.
With respect to her asylum and withholding claims, she has not
meaningfully contested the BIA’s conclusion that she failed to show that
Honduran officials would be unwilling or unable to protect her from
persecution and thus has not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion
contrary to that of the agency on this issue. See id.; see also Sanchez-Amador
v. Garland, 30 F.4th 529, 534 (5th Cir. 2022); Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395,
402 (5th Cir. 2021); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
Because official unwillingness or inability to protect the alien from
persecution is an essential element of claims for asylum and withholding, she
has not met the substantial evidence standard with respect to these claims,
and there is no need to address her remaining arguments concerning these
forms of relief. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344; Jaco, 24 F.4th at 402; INS v.
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam).
Similarly, she has not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion
contrary to that of the agency on the issue whether she more likely than not
will be tortured with governmental acquiescence if repatriated and thus has
not met the substantial evidence standard with respect to her CAT claim. See
Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017); Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates,
846 F.3d 806, 812 (5th Cir. 2017). The petition for review is DENIED.
2