Case: 18-60830 Document: 00516426836 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 10, 2022
No. 18-60830 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Ivonne Monserrat Arriaga Gonzalez; Hiram
Mondragon Arriaga; Ximena Mondragon Arriaga,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A208 979 210
Agency No. A208 979 211
Agency No. A208 979 212
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ivonne Monserrat Arriaga Gonzalez, together with her minor children
Hiram Mondragon Arriaga and Ximena Mondragon Arriaga (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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 18-60830 Document: 00516426836 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2022
No. 18-60830
petitioners), natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing their appeal from an
order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying their applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). We generally review only the BIA’s decision except to the
extent that the IJ’s ruling influences the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220,
224 (5th Cir. 2018).
The petitioners do not challenge the agency’s conclusion that they
failed to establish persecution on account of Arriaga Gonzalez’s imputed
political opinion, and any such argument is abandoned. See Soadjede v.
Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). They do, however, challenge the
BIA’s conclusion that they failed to establish the required nexus between
their family-based particular social group (PSG) and their feared persecution.
See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019). Evidence in the
record indicates that any harm the petitioners fear upon return to Mexico
would not be on account of their family-based PSG but rather private
criminality. Accordingly, the evidence does not compel a conclusion that the
petitioners demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of a protected ground. See Vazquez-Guerra v.
Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 270 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022);
Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019); Ramirez-Mejia v.
Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 492-93 (5th Cir. 2015).
Because the lack of nexus is dispositive of the asylum claim, see
Gonzales-Veliz, 938 F.3d at 224-25; Ramirez-Mejia, 794 F.3d at 493, it is
unnecessary to address the petitioners’ arguments regarding whether the
harm rose to the level of persecution and whether there is an objectively
reasonable fear of future harm. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25
(1976) (“As a general rule, courts and agencies are not required to make
2
Case: 18-60830 Document: 00516426836 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/10/2022
No. 18-60830
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they
reach.”)
Because the petitioners have failed to demonstrate their entitlement
to asylum, they cannot satisfy the more demanding standard for withholding
of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). The
petitioners argue for the first time before this court that under the
withholding of removal standard they must establish that a protected ground
is only “a reason” for the persecution, rather than a “central reason” as is
required for asylum claims. We lack jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted
argument. See Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 360 (5th Cir.
2022).
With respect to the claims for CAT relief, the petitioners assert that
it is more likely than not that they will be tortured with the acquiescence of
Mexican officials if they return to their home country, and they argue
primarily that the evidence and testimony presented establish official consent
or acquiescence. They also maintain that the fact that family remains in
Mexico without suffering harm is not dispositive of the claim, and that the
IJ’s and the BIA’s reliance on that factor constituted legal error.
The IJ and BIA were entitled to consider the family’s ability to
relocate within Mexico to determine the likelihood that she would be tortured
in the future. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii). Additionally, the BIA and the IJ
did not rely on this fact alone; rather, BIA and the IJ considered facts that
Arriaga Gonzalez had not suffered torture and that there was no
particularized threat of torture upon return. She has abandoned any
challenge to the IJ’s and the BIA’s findings on the issue of a particularized
threat by failing to meaningfully address them. See Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833.
Moreover, the evidence shows that her family remains in Mexico unharmed.
Thus, the record does not compel a conclusion that the petitioners are
3
Case: 18-60830 Document: 00516426836 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/10/2022
No. 18-60830
entitled to CAT relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1206.16(c)(2). Because the petitioners
failed to show that a likelihood of torture if returned to Mexico, it is not
necessary to consider whether any torture would be with the consent or
acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25.
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED in part and
DISMISSED in part.
4