Case: 20-60848 Document: 00516103555 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 22, 2021
No. 20-60848
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Florinda Josefina Lopez Diaz,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 841 361
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Florinda Josefina Lopez Diaz, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying
her application for withholding of removal. Lopez Diaz contends that the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60848 Document: 00516103555 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2021
No. 20-60848
BIA erred in its conclusion that she had not established past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her political opinion or
race.
We review findings of fact, including the denial of withholding of
removal, under the substantial evidence standard. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432
F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). This standard requires that the decision (1) be
based on the evidence presented and (2) be substantially reasonable. Sharma
v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). We may not reverse factual
findings unless the evidence “compels” reversal—i.e., the evidence must be
“so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.”
Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2009). It is the petitioner’s
burden to demonstrate that the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.
Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005).
Lopez Diaz asserts first that she experienced past persecution on
account of her political opinion. She explains that her father once
participated in some political activity several years before he was murdered
and that, after her father’s death, she also received a death threat from the
people who had killed her father. Lopez Diaz also contends that she
experienced past persecution when, on a single occasion, she was robbed in
Guatemala City, ostensibly because of her Mam race. For similar reasons
and because her daughter suffers from a chronic medical condition, Lopez
Diaz also urges that she will be the victim of future persecution if she is
returned to Guatemala.
The IJ and BIA concluded that Lopez Diaz had not demonstrated past
persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a
protected ground. Lopez Diaz does not identify any political opinion she
holds or that can otherwise be imputed to her, and she merely speculates that
she was robbed because of her Mam race. Thus, she has not pointed to any
2
Case: 20-60848 Document: 00516103555 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/22/2021
No. 20-60848
evidence that compels a conclusion she was or will be persecuted on account
of a protected ground. See Zhao, 404 F.3d at 306; Martinez Manzanares v.
Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 2019). Further, Lopez Diaz’s family
members remain in Guatemala without harm, which reduces the
reasonableness of her fear of future persecution. See Gonzalez-Soto v. Lynch,
841 F.3d 682, 683-84 (5th Cir. 2016).
Lopez Diaz also points to her daughter’s illness and argues that
removal to Guatemala would invite further persecution and unnecessary
hardship upon her family. Again, this evidence does not compel a conclusion
that Lopez Diaz herself would face persecution on account of a protected
ground, see Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1138 (5th Cir. 2006), and Lopez
Diaz may not urge a derivative claim based on her daughter’s illness, see Kane
v. Holder, 581 F.3d 231, 240 (5th Cir. 2009).
Lastly, Lopez Diaz refers to her membership in a particular social
group as another basis for relief. But Lopez Diaz informed the IJ that she was
advancing no such claim, and the BIA did not address any related contention.
Therefore, Lopez Diaz has not exhausted this issue, and we lack jurisdiction
to address it. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir. 2019).
The petition is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
3