Case: 20-60894 Document: 00516237216 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 14, 2022
No. 20-60894 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Jenny Anabel Gonzalez-Pineda; Angelli Jereh Gonzalez-
Gonzalez,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A209 883 994
BIA No. A209 883 995
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jenny Anabel Gonzales-Pineda, a native and citizen of Honduras,
timely petitions this court for review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the denial her asylum, withholding of
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60894 Document: 00516237216 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2022
No. 20-60894
removal and Convention Against Torture claims. Arguing asylum, she
asserts that the harm she described is persecution, that she is a member of a
cognizable social group, and that this membership is causally linked to the
harm. Gonzales-Pineda argues that the Board abused its discretion by not
fully analyzing her withholding claim or by not applying a more relaxed
standard for the nexus element of the claim. Finally, she generally argues
that the record supports a finding that it is more likely than not she will be
tortured upon removal.
On petition for review of a BIA decision, we review factual findings
for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Lopez-Gomez v.
Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we reverse only
when the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS,
78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).
We are not compelled to find that the harm Gonzales-Pineda describes
is extreme enough to qualify as persecution. See Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d
393, 397 (5th Cir. 2020). Analysis of the other elements she argues is
unnecessary because the lack of any one element is fatal to the claim. See INS
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976).
As Gonzales-Pineda does not prove the elements of her asylum claim,
the BIA correctly held her withholding claim necessarily fails. See Efe v.
Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). Moreover, we have rejected the
argument that a relaxed nexus standard applies to withholding claims. See
Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 271 (5th Cir. 2021), petition for cert.
filed (Oct. 27, 2021) (No. 21-632).
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 Board and so is unexhausted. See
Gonzalez Hernandez v. Garland, 9 F.3d 278, 284-86 (5th Cir. 2021)
2
Case: 20-60894 Document: 00516237216 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/14/2022
No. 20-60894
We are not compelled to find that Gonzales-Pineda will, more likely
than not, be tortured because the record primarily reflects general conditions
of danger and the specific harm that is described does not qualify as
persecution, so cannot qualify as torture. See Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904,
911 (5th Cir. 2019).
Finally, Gonzalez-Pineda moves for this court to hold proceedings in
abeyance pending the outcome of a possible motion to reopen. The motion
is denied.
DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART; MOTION
FOR ABEYANCE DENIED.
3