Gonzalez Sanchez v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 20-60594 Document: 00516150469 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 3, 2022
No. 20-60594
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Amany Gonzalez Sanchez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A201 451 703
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Amany Gonzalez Sanchez, a native and citizen of Cuba, petitions this
court for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
upholding the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He argues that the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60594 Document: 00516150469 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2022
No. 20-60594
record compels the conclusion that his actual or imputed political opinion
was at least one central reason for the harm he suffered, the harm qualified as
persecution and was perpetrated by the Cuban government, and he
established a well-founded fear of future persecution.
As an initial matter, we decline to sua sponte raise any issues regarding
whether this court is a proper venue for the petition for review, in light of the
possible “unfairness of requiring the parties to relitigate anew in a different
forum.” Jama v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 230, 233 (5th Cir. 2005). Regarding the
merits of Gonzalez Sanchez’s arguments, we review the BIA’s decision and
only consider the immigration judge’s decision to the extent that it
influenced the BIA’s decision. Revencu v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 396, 401 (5th
Cir. 2018), as revised (Aug. 2, 2018). The determination that an alien is not
eligible for asylum or withholding of removal is reviewed under the
substantial evidence standard. Id.; Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th
Cir. 2006).
According to Gonzalez Sanchez’s testimony and written statement, a
Cuban security official identified as Captain Tony first approached Gonzalez
Sanchez because Captain Tony wanted him to relay information about the
Nigerian ambassador’s conversations. Gonzalez Sanchez was singled out for
the task because he was one of the ambassador’s two personal drivers and
spoke better English than the other driver. Those reasons are unrelated to
Gonzalez Sanchez’s political beliefs. See Changsheng Du v. Barr, 975 F.3d
444, 448 (5th Cir. 2020); Revencu, 895 F.3d at 403.
Additionally, Captain Tony’s subsequent threats that Gonzalez
Sanchez should provide the information sought to avoid future harm shows
that the harm against Gonzalez Sanchez was contingent on his failure to
perform the task, rather than any political opinion. Captain Tony’s
statements indicating that Gonzalez Sanchez owed a duty to “revolution”
2
Case: 20-60594 Document: 00516150469 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/03/2022
No. 20-60594
and was acting like a “traitor” by refusing to cooperate, to the extent they
could have been evidence that an actual or imputed political opinion of
Gonzalez Sanchez was involved, were merely “incidental, tangential,
superficial, or subordinate to” the primary motive of recruiting Gonzalez
Sanchez to obtain information on the Nigerian ambassador. Revencu, 895
F.3d at 404 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
While Gonzalez Sanchez also contends that certain evidence was
ignored, mischaracterized, or overlooked, the argument is unavailing because
the evidence as a whole does not compel a conclusion that his actual or
imputed political opinion was or will be a central reason for the alleged harm.
See Changsheng Du, 975 F.3d at 448; Revencu, 895 F.3d at 403-04. Because
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Gonzalez Sanchez
failed to meet his burden for asylum, he has also failed to satisfy his burden
for withholding of removal. See Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958 F.3d 402, 408
(5th Cir. 2020). Gonzalez Sanchez does not brief any argument challenging
the denial of relief under the CAT, and he therefore has abandoned any such
challenge. See Singh v. Sessions, 898 F.3d 518, 521 (5th Cir. 2018).
The petition for review is DENIED.
3