Herrera-Alvarez v. Garland

Case: 23-60066 Document: 00516838852 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-60066
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ July 28, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Norma Francisca Herrera-Alvarez, Clerk
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A215 718 137
______________________________
Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Norma Francisca Herrera-Alvarez, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing her appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) ordering
her removed and denying her application for asylum and withholding of
removal.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60066 Document: 00516838852 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2023
No. 23-60066
This court reviews the denial of asylum and withholding for
substantial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
Pursuant to this standard, this court may not disturb the BIA’s decision
unless the evidence “compels” a contrary conclusion. Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). This court considers the IJ’s decision only
insofar as it influences the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th
Cir. 2018). Insofar as Herrera-Alvarez asserts that the BIA did not issue its
own opinion, she is wrong.
One seeking asylum must show that officials are unable or unwilling
to protect her from persecution on account of a protected ground. Jaco v.
Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 402 (5th Cir. 2021). One seeking withholding must
show that she “more likely than not” will be persecuted due to a protected
ground if repatriated. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because withholding “is a
higher standard than asylum,” one who fails to show eligibility for the latter
necessarily fails to show eligibility for the former. Id. Accordingly, Herrera-
Alvarez’s argument that the BIA did not properly consider her withholding
claim is unavailing. See id.Likewise unavailing are her arguments challenging the BIA’s
conclusion that she failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of
persecution, as she has not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion
contrary to that of the BIA on this issue. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344; see also
Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 395-99 (5th Cir. 2020); Singh, 920 F.3d at 259;
Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2004). Because persecution is
an essential element of a claim for asylum or withholding, there is no need to
address Herrera-Alvarez’s remaining arguments. See INS v. Bagamasbad,
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam). The petition for review is DENIED.
2