Case: 19-60895 Document: 00515880931 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-60895 May 28, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jose Adrian Tejada-Reyes,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A 097 743 553
Before Smith, Haynes, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jose Tejada-Reyes, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing
his appeal from the denial of his motion to reopen. He avers that an incorrect
legal standard was applied to his motion to reopen and that he made a prima
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin-
ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60895 Document: 00515880931 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2021
No. 19-60895
facie showing of eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) entitling him to reopening.
By not addressing them in his appellate brief, Tejada-Reyes has abandoned
review of his claims regarding equitable tolling, improper notice of the conse-
quences of failing to appear, sua sponte reopening, and due process. See
Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008).
We review the denial of a motion to reopen under a highly deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard. Lowe v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 713, 715 (5th Cir.
2017). A motion to reopen may be denied for failure to demonstrate prima
facie eligibility for relief. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). To make
a prima facie showing of eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or
protection under the CAT, the movant must demonstrate a reasonable like-
lihood that he has met the requirements for relief. Guevara Flores v. INS,
786 F.2d 1242, 1247 (5th Cir. 1986).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Tejada-Reyes
was not held to a heightened prima facie standard of eligibility. Despite his
assertions to the contrary, he was not required to make a conclusive showing
of persecution and instead was merely required to demonstrate that “the evi-
dence reveal[ed] a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for
relief have been satisfied.”
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Tejada-Reyes
failed to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for asylum and withholding
of removal. To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant must prove that
he is unwilling or unable to return to his home country “because of persecu-
tion or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nation-
ality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Sharma
v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42)(A)). “[A]lthough a statutorily protected ground need not be
2
Case: 19-60895 Document: 00515880931 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/28/2021
No. 19-60895
the only reason for harm, it cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial, or
subordinate to another reason for harm.” Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 153,
159 (5th Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (quoting Sealed Petitioner v. Sealed
Respondent, 829 F.3d 379, 383 (5th Cir. 2016)). Although Tejada-Reyes
claims that a central reason for his persecution was his political opinion, the
record reflects that he was merely subjected to economic extortion, which is
not a cognizable form of persecution. See Singh v. Barr, 920 F.3d 255, 259
(5th Cir. 2019).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Tejada-Reyes
failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to protection under the
CAT. To establish that entitlement, an alien must prove that it is more likely
than not that he will be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of public
officials if he returns to the particular country in question. 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). Despite his claims to the contrary, Tejada-
Reyes is unable to show a reasonable likelihood of torture by the Guatemalan
police because his brother and mother have continued to reside there without
incident and because he was initially targeted on account of his ability to pay
and the record reflects that he no longer has any business interests in
Guatemala.
The petition for review is DENIED.
3