Case: 21-60176 Document: 00516336448 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 27, 2022
No. 21-60176
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Juventino Enrique Marroquin-Flores,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A 206 508 281
Before Davis, Jones, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Juventino Enrique Marroquin-Flores, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a decision of the Immigration
Judge (IJ) concluding that he was ineligible for 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60176 Document: 00516336448 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2022
No. 21-60176
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He
challenges the BIA’s conclusions that he has not shown eligibility for asylum
and withholding because he failed to show that he was a member of a
cognizable particular social group (PSG) and failed to establish a nexus
between the harm and a protected ground. He also challenges the BIA’s
conclusion that he has not shown eligibility for CAT relief. These arguments
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 IJ’s decision only insofar as it influenced the BIA.
See Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).
Marroquin-Flores has not shown that substantial evidence compels a
conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the issue whether he belonged to a
cognizable PSG and whether he established a nexus between the harm and a
protected ground. See Jaco v. Garland, 24 F. 4th 395, 403-06 (5th Cir. 2021);
Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 522 (5th Cir. 2012); Zhang, 432 F.3d
at 344. Additionally, Marroquin-Flores fails to show that the record compels
a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s that he failed to establish that it was more
likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a
government official were he repatriated to El Salvador. See Zhang, 432 F.3d
at 344.
His argument that the BIA failed to consider country conditions in
denying CAT relief is without merit. That the BIA did not specifically refer
to this evidence does not mean that the BIA did not consider it. See Efe v.
Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 908 (5th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, Marroquin-Flores
fails to point to any specific country-conditions evidence that would compel
the conclusion that he is eligible for CAT protection. Marroquin-Flores’s
contention that the BIA erred in relying on In re J-F-F-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 912
(A.G. 2006), and Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates, 846 F.3d 806 (5th Cir. 2017), fails
as he does not demonstrate a realistic possibility that, had the BIA not relied
2
Case: 21-60176 Document: 00516336448 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/27/2022
No. 21-60176
them, it would have reached a different conclusion. See Enriquez-Gutierrez
v. Holder, 612 F.3d 400, 407 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding that this court can affirm
despite a BIA error where there is not a realistic possibility that, absent the
error, the BIA would have reached a different conclusion).
Finally, Marroquin-Flores contends that the BIA erred in deeming the
IJ’s failure to consider the viability of relocation within El Salvador to be
harmless error. However, Marroquin-Flores fails to articulate how the IJ’s
consideration of his ability to relocate within El Salvador would have caused
the IJ or BIA to grant him CAT relief, where the IJ and BIA expressly denied
relief on the independently dispositive ground that he failed to show that it
was more likely than not that he would have been tortured by or with the
acquiescence of government officials.
The petition for review is DENIED.
3