Case: 18-60417 Document: 00516326041 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 19, 2022
No. 18-60417
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Berta Lidia Arias,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A209 824 747
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Berta Lidia Arias, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
concluding that she was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Her challenges to
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 18-60417 Document: 00516326041 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2022
No. 18-60417
the BIA’s determinations that she was ineligible for relief are reviewed under
the substantial evidence standard. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344
(5th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we review the decision of the BIA and consider
the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision only insofar as it influenced the BIA.
See Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).
Arias has not shown that substantial evidence compels a conclusion
contrary to that of the BIA on the issue of whether she showed a nexus
between the harm alleged and her proposed social groups or her political
opinion. See Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 269–70 (5th Cir. 2021),
cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022). Accordingly, she has not shown that
substantial evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the
issue whether she showed eligibility for asylum or withholding, and we need
not consider her remaining arguments concerning these forms of relief. See
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
Arias’s other arguments are also unavailing. Her due process
argument fails because she has not shown substantial prejudice. See Santos-
Alvarado v. Barr, 967 F.3d 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2020). Because she has not
shown she will more likely than not be tortured with governmental
acquiescence if repatriated, she has not shown that substantial evidence
compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the merits of her CAT
claim. See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015). Finally,
her collateral estoppel argument fails because the IJ’s original ruling on the
CAT issue was not a final judgment. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.39; In re Fedorenko,
19 I. & N. Dec. 57, 61 (BIA 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Negusie v.
Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009).
The petition for review is DENIED.
2