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

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.