Case: 19-60298 Document: 00515659781 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 3, 2020
No. 19-60298
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Engelbert Felix Carbajal-Betanco, also known as Engelbert
Felix Carvajal-Betanco,
Petitioner,
versus
William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A096 180 187
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Engelbert Carbajal-Betanco, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of an immigration judge’s decision affirming an asylum
officer’s determination that he lacked a reasonable fear of persecution or
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60298 Document: 00515659781 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2020
No. 19-60298
torture. On appeal, he presents claims that pertain only to the determination
that he lacked a reasonable fear of persecution. Therefore, he has abandoned
any challenge to the determination that he failed to demonstrate that he was
more likely than not to be tortured upon his return to El Salvador. See
Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). The
Government has also filed a motion to dismiss the petition for review.
To establish a reasonable fear of persecution, an alien must
“establish[] a reasonable possibility that he or she would be persecuted on
account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group or political opinion.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(c). 1 To demonstrate
persecution, the applicant must establish that one of the five statutorily
protected grounds was “at least one central reason” for the harm that he
experienced. Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 2019)
(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)).
Carbajal-Betanco argues that he was persecuted on account of owning
a small business, being a former gang member, and being a practicing
Christian. However, economic extortion is not a form of persecution under
immigration law. See Singh v. Barr, 920 F.3d 255, 259 (5th Cir. 2019).
Moreover, Carbajal-Betanco’s claim that he could be threatened by gangs if
they discover he was in a rival gang in his youth does not rise to the level of
persecution because it is “non-specific” and “lacking in immediacy.” See
1
Although the Government argues that this court should apply a “facially
legitimate and bona fide reason” standard rather than the substantial evidence standard in
evaluating an immigration judge’s reasonable fear determination, it is not necessary to
determine the appropriate standard of review at this time because Carbajal-Betanco’s claim
fails even under the less deferential substantial evidence test. See Lara-Nieto v. Barr, 945
F.3d 1054, 1060 n.5 (8th Cir. 2019). Under the substantial evidence standard, this 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).
2
Case: 19-60298 Document: 00515659781 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/03/2020
No. 19-60298
Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958 F.3d 402, 407 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Qorane
v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 910 (5th Cir. 2019)). Finally, although he argues that
he was targeted because he is a practicing Christian, he explicitly stated that
the gang threatened him not because of his religion, but because he lived in a
different “colony.” Because the record does not compel the conclusion that
Carbajal-Betanco suffered past persecution or that he has a well-founded fear
of future persecution, substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s
reasonable fear determination.
Based upon the foregoing, the petition for review is DENIED and the
motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot.
3