Villalobos Melendez v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 19-60868 Document: 00515935400 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 13, 2021
No. 19-60868 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Elder Leonel Villalobos Melendez; Patricia Carlolina
Medina-Zaravia; Mery Villalobos-Medina,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 151 506
BIA No. A208 364 344
BIA No. A208 364 345
Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Elder Leonel Villalobos Melendez, his wife Patricia Carlolina Medina-
Zaravia, and their daughter, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60868 Document: 00515935400 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2021
No. 19-60868
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denying relief. The wife
and daughter seek asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT); Elder seeks the latter two forms of
relief.
The family describes a series of threats designed to compel them to
abandon criminal and civil actions in Honduras, contending these threats
constitute past, and fear of future, persecution. In the alternative, they claim
the harm they suffered was based on political opinion. Additionally, they
assert they are eligible for protection under CAT because the Honduran
government would be complicit in their persecution.
The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence;
questions of law, de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th
Cir. 2001). Decisions denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
relief are reviewed for substantial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339,
344 (5th Cir. 2005). Under such a standard, reversal is improper unless the
evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685
F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012).
For the asylum claim, the mother and daughter claim past, and fear of
future, persecution. The described past-persecution harms do not rise to the
level of the “extreme conduct to qualify for asylum protection” under our
precedent. Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595–96 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation
omitted) (denying asylum despite “generally dangerous conditions” in home
country and incidents at applicant’s place of employment). Additionally, the
claims for fear of future persecution must fail because any potential fear is not
based on a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(i).
The standard of proof is higher for withholding of removal than
asylum. Because the asylum claims fail, the family’s withholding of removal
claim necessarily fails. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
2
Case: 19-60868 Document: 00515935400 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/13/2021
No. 19-60868
Regarding CAT relief, the family contends: the Honduran police
force is generally known to be corrupt; and their prior experiences and harms
suffered establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. Our precedent,
however, forecloses this claim. See Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343,
350–51 (5th Cir. 2006) (requiring state’s clear acts or willful ignorance in
torture).
DENIED.
3