Canales-Galindo v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 23-60013 Document: 00516841870 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 23-60013 August 1, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jenny Yaquelin Canales-Galindo; Skarleth Gissel
Rubio-Canales,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency Nos. A209 898 822,
A209 898 823
______________________________
Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Jenny Yaquelin Canales-Galindo and her child, Skarleth Gissel Rubio-
Canales, are natives and citizens of Honduras. They petition for review of
the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of their appeal from
the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of Canales-Galindo’s application for
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60013 Document: 00516841870 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2023
No. 23-60013
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). Rubio-Canales is a derivative beneficiary of her
mother’s application.
We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s underlying
decision only if it impacted the BIA’s decision, as it did here. See Sharma v.
Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Findings of fact, including the
denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, are reviewed
under the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131,
1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may not
reverse a factual finding unless the evidence compels such a reversal—i.e.,
the evidence must be “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could
reach a contrary conclusion.” Id. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
Sharma, 729 F.3d at 411.
Regarding her asylum and withholding of removal claims, Canales-
Galindo has failed to show that the record compels the conclusion that her
former partner abused her on account of her membership in the proffered
particular social groups of “persons not protected by the authorities” or
“wom[e]n that [are] mistreated and subjected to domestic violence,” rather
than based on personal and criminal motives. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134;
Sharma, 729 F.3d at 411-12. Conduct driven by purely personal or criminal
motives does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground for
purposes of asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Thuri v. Ashcroft,
380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004); Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d
222, 227-28 (5th Cir. 2019).
As to her CAT claim, Canales-Galindo has failed to show that the
record compels the conclusion that she would likely be tortured with the
acquiescence of the Honduran government. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134, 1141.
Although her abusive former partner threatened her with his claimed
2
Case: 23-60013 Document: 00516841870 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/01/2023
No. 23-60013
connection to the police, Canales-Galindo testified that she is unaware if he
is actually so connected and, further, that she did not follow her doctor’s
advice to file a police report. She argues only that the Honduran government
may not be able to prevent her former partner from further torturing her,
which does not compel the conclusion that there would be sufficient state
action involved in the feared torture. See Martinez Manzanares, 925 F.3d at
229; see also Aviles-Tavera v. Garland, 22 F.4th 478, 486 (5th Cir. 2022)
(confirming that “a foreign government’s failure to apprehend the persons
threatening the alien or the lack of financial resources to eradicate the threat
or risk of torture do not constitute sufficient state action”) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
3