Case: 20-60573 Document: 00516377383 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 30, 2022
No. 20-60573
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jose Esteban Sanchez-Thomas,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A202 144 339
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jose Esteban Sanchez-Thomas, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing his appeal from an order of the immigration judge (IJ) concluding
that he was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60573 Document: 00516377383 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2022
No. 20-60573
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the decision of the BIA and
will consider the IJ’s decision only insofar as it influenced the BIA. See Singh
v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).
Sanchez-Thomas first challenges the BIA’s determination that his
asylum and withholding of removal claims failed because he did not provide
sufficient corroborating evidence. He notes that he was deemed a credible
witness, and he contends that he should not have been required to provide
letters from persons who had no first-hand knowledge of the threats against
him.
Where the IJ determines that the applicant should provide evidence
which corroborates otherwise credible testimony, “such evidence must be
provided unless the applicant demonstrates that [he] does not have the
evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(4)(B). The failure to present such evidence can be fatal to an
alien’s application for relief. Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 764 (5th Cir.
2020).
Our review shows that substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Sanchez-Thomas failed to provide evidence that
corroborated his claims and that such evidence was reasonably available. See
Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 587 (5th Cir. 2011). As the IJ and the BIA
discussed, even assuming that a letter from his boss was not reasonably
available, Sanchez-Thomas either failed to request a letter or statement from
several other individuals who were aware of his circumstances in Honduras
or else failed to follow up when his request was not fulfilled. The failure to
provide reasonably available corroborating evidence was enough, standing
alone, to support the BIA’s decision that Sanchez-Thomas was not entitled
to relief. See id. Although Sanchez-Thomas raises several other contentions
2
Case: 20-60573 Document: 00516377383 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/30/2022
No. 20-60573
pertaining to his asylum and withholding of removal claims, we need not
address them. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
Regarding his CAT claim, Sanchez-Thomas asserts that his testimony
about the threats from gang members and their continued interest in him
shows that he is likely to be tortured if he returns to Honduras. He notes that
country conditions evidence shows that there are human rights violations,
including torture, occurring in the country, and he argues that the record
demonstrates that at least one member of the Honduran police force would
consent to or acquiesce in his torture by gang members.
As the IJ determined, when police were notified that Sanchez-Thomas
had been assaulted on July 10, 2014, they arrested one of the assailants; this
supports the BIA’s determination that the evidence did not show that it was
more likely than not that public officials would acquiesce in his torture. See
Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 225-26 (5th Cir. 2019). Additionally,
the record does not support a finding of past torture, and Sanchez-Thomas
did not report other threats against him to the police. See Martinez
Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 228 (5th Cir. 2019). Because the record
does not compel the conclusion that Sanchez-Thomas was eligible for CAT
relief, we will not disturb the agency’s decision. See Gonzales-Veliz, 938 F.3d
at 225-26; Martinez Manzanares, 925 F.3d at 228.
The petition for review is DENIED.
3