Pavon-Polanco v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 20-60756 Document: 00516214404 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 23, 2022
No. 20-60756 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Marsi Rubi Pavon-Polanco; Olban Said Banegas-Pavon,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 976 008
BIA No. A208 976 009
Before Barksdale, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
On behalf of herself and her minor child, Marsi Rubi Pavon-Polanco,
a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the denial of her
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60756 Document: 00516214404 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2022
No. 20-60756
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). Pavon contends: she showed both past
persecution, and a reasonable fear of future persecution, by police or
gangsters due to her membership in a proposed social group (PSG),
consisting of family members of her brother, who was kidnapped and
murdered; the BIA improperly analyzed her withholding-of-removal claim;
and she showed it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if
repatriated.
In reviewing the BIA’s decision, our court considers the Immigration
Judge’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. E.g., Singh v.
Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Findings of fact, including the
denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, are reviewed
for substantial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir.
2005). Under that standard, our court may not overturn a factual finding
unless “the evidence compels a contrary result”. Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943
F.3d 766, 769 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).
The record does not compel a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA
on whether Pavon showed the requisite nexus between her proposed PSG
membership and the alleged persecution. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344
(explaining “[a]sylum is discretionary and may be granted to ‘an alien who is
unable or unwilling to return to his home country because of persecution or
a well-founded fear of persecution on account of [inter alia], membership in
a particular social group . . .’” (citation omitted)).
The BIA used the proper higher-burden-of-proof standard to analyze
her withholding-of-removal claim. See Revencu v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 396, 402
(5th Cir. 2018) (explaining withholding standard).
Finally, she has not shown that the record compels a conclusion
contrary to that of the BIA on whether she will more likely than not be
2
Case: 20-60756 Document: 00516214404 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/23/2022
No. 20-60756
tortured if repatriated. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002)
(noting “[CAT] applicant has the burden of proving [inter alia] ‘that it is
more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the
proposed country of removal’” (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2)); Ramirez-
Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 493–94 (5th Cir. 2015) (affirming BIA’s
conclusion petitioner did not qualify for CAT protection).
DENIED.
3