Case: 20-60548 Document: 00516167621 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/14/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 14, 2022
No. 20-60548 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Maria De Los Angeles Chavez Hernandez; Alex Arturo
Nieves Chavez; Brayan Erik Nieves Chavez; Jose Yahir
Nieves Chavez,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A202 098 433
BIA No. A202 098 434
BIA No. A202 098 435
BIA No. A202 098 436
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60548 Document: 00516167621 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/14/2022
No. 20-60548
Petitioner Maria De Los Angeles Chavez Hernandez is a native and
citizen of Mexico who petitions for review of the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the denial by an
immigration judge (IJ) of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Three of her children were included
as derivatives on her application.
Chavez Hernandez contends that she is entitled to relief based on a
showing of past persecution and a fear of future persecution on account of
her membership in a particular social group — business owners targeted for
extortion by criminals and corrupt police officials. She posits that it is more
likely than not that officials would acquiesce in her torture if she were to
return to Mexico.
We generally have authority to review only the decision of the BIA,
but we will consider the IJ’s decision when, as here, it influenced the
determination of the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007).
We review the BIA’s rulings of law de novo and its factual findings for
substantial evidence. Id. at 594.
Chavez Hernandez complained of two extortion attempts and two
threatening phone calls. “[M]ere denigration, harassment, and threats” do
not qualify as persecution. Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187-88 & n.4
(5th Cir. 2004). The testimony reveals only that Chavez Hernandez believed
the police were corrupt, not that she encountered either actual police
corruption or “specially oppressive political or governmental conditions.”
Adebisi v. INS, 952 F.2d 910, 914 (5th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Thus, she cannot demonstrate that the government willfully
acquiesced in persecution or torture. Furthermore, “extorted business
owners” do not constitute a protected group. See Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443
F.3d 405, 414-15 (5th Cir. 2006). We do not “recognize economic extortion
2
Case: 20-60548 Document: 00516167621 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/14/2022
No. 20-60548
as a form of persecution under immigration law.” Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch,
794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Castillo-Enriquez v. Holder, 690
F.3d 667, 668 (5th Cir. 2012)).
Because Chavez Hernandez was not entitled to asylum, she
necessarily cannot establish that she was entitled to withholding of removal
which requires a higher standard of proof. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131,
1138 (5th Cir. 2006). In addition, an alien seeking relief under the CAT must
satisfy a rigorous standard because she must provide proof of torture and not
merely persecution. Id. at 1139. Because the incidents and threats Chavez
Hernandez experienced did not rise to the level of persecution, “[i]t follows
a fortiori they do not constitute torture.” Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 911
(5th Cir. 2019). The evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to the
BIA’s determination. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134.
Chavez Hernandez’s petition for review, therefore, is DENIED.
3