Case: 20-60641 Document: 00516220340 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 28, 2022
No. 20-60641 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Jaimy Arely Santos-Lopez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 985 987
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jaimy Arely Santos-Lopez is a native and citizen of El Salvador. She
petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60641 Document: 00516220340 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2022
No. 20-60641
of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
We review the decision of the BIA and will consider the IJ’s decision
only to the extent it influenced the BIA’s decision. Vazquez-Guerra v.
Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 268 (5th Cir. 2021), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Oct. 27,
2021) (No. 21-632). We review questions of law de novo and factual findings
for substantial evidence. Id. Under the substantial evidence standard, “[t]he
[petitioner] has the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that
no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Chen v.
Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
Santos-Lopez argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s
determination that she is not entitled to asylum and withholding of removal
based upon her persecution by the MS-13 gang for being a member of a
particular social group consisting of family members of Jose Gilberto Plaron,
who was a Salvadoran police officer. We need not resolve the question of
whether the proposed particular social group is cognizable because the
evidence does not compel a finding that there was a requisite nexus between
the harm she suffered or feared and membership in that group. See Vazquez-
Guerra, 7 F.4th at 268-69, 270-71. Although she testified that she was
targeted because Plaron, her uncle, was a police officer, she also testified that
the gang began to threaten her uncle and his family after a gang leader was
shot and killed during a confrontation between the gang and the Salvadorian
police. We have held that conduct driven by purely personal or criminal
motives do not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground. See
Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002). Without the
required nexus, Santos-Lopez’s asylum claim fails. 1 See Shaikh v. Holder, 588
1
The IJ’s findings relating to past persecution, a well-founded fear of future
persecution, and the government’s ability and willingness to protect Santos-Lopez, are not
2
Case: 20-60641 Document: 00516220340 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/28/2022
No. 20-60641
F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009). Further, because she did not establish
entitlement to asylum, she cannot meet the standard for withholding of
removal. See Vazquez-Guerra, 7 F.4th at 271; Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958
F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2020); Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir.
2006).
To the extent argument is offered about Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I. &
N. Dec. 84 (Att’y Gen. 2020), we lack jurisdiction to consider it because this
argument was not made before the BIA and is unexhausted. See Gonzalez
Hernandez v. Garland, 9 F.4th 278, 284-86 (5th Cir. 2021).
Santos-Lopez also asserts that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s
finding that she is not entitled to CAT protection. The record does not
establish that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed
to El Salvador and that any Salvadoran public official knows who she is or
would be willing to acquiesce in her torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2);
8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); see also Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343,
350 (5th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the record evidence does not compel the
conclusion that Santos-Lopez is eligible for CAT protection. See Ramirez-
Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015); Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d
531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED IN PART AND
DISMISSED IN PART.
before this court. See Enriquez-Gutierrez v. Holder, 612 F.3d 400, 407 (5th Cir. 2010)
(explaining that this court “may usually only affirm the BIA on the basis of its stated
rationale for ordering an alien removed from the United States”).
3