Case: 20-60444 Document: 00515963163 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-60444 August 3, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Ana Cecilia Santos-Perez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 286 870
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ana Cecilia Santos-Perez petitions for review of the dismissal by the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of her appeal from the denial of the
Immigration Judge (IJ) of her applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60444 Document: 00515963163 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2021
No. 20-60444
review the decision of the BIA and will consider the IJ’s decision only to the
extent it influenced the BIA. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir.
2009). Questions of law are reviewed de novo and factual findings are
reviewed for substantial evidence. Id. Under the substantial evidence
standard, “[t]he alien must show that the evidence was so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d
531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s dismissal of Santos-Perez’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims. See id. As to asylum, the BIA
concluded that “siblings of former gang members” is not a cognizable social
group. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). The BIA has provided examples of
evidence which could support this showing, including country condition
reports, testimony from expert witnesses, and newspaper accounts. See
Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 244 (BIA 2014). Santos-Perez did
not submit any such evidence before the IJ and makes no meaningful
argument to the contrary here. As Santos-Perez failed to demonstrate
entitlement to asylum, she has also failed to demonstrate entitlement to
withholding of removal. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
Finally, with respect to Santos-Perez’s claim for protection under the
CAT, examination of the record does not reveal any basis for concluding that
the BIA’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Zhang
v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Santos-Perez presented little,
if any, evidence that she would be targeted for future torture “by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of,” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.18(a)(1), the Guatemalan government. To the contrary, the IJ found
there to be evidence in the record that the Guatemalan government is
attempting to combat, not encourage or ignore, gang violence, including but
not limited to the arrest and conviction of Santos-Perez’s own brother and
the police’s deployment of additional resources in her neighborhood after she
2
Case: 20-60444 Document: 00515963163 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/03/2021
No. 20-60444
filed a police report. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1142 (5th Cir. 2006)
(stating that we may consider “government efforts to combat corruption or
abuse”).
The petition for review is DENIED.
3