Case: 22-60092 Document: 00516493466 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 3, 2022
No. 22-60092
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Gresia Ivet Rodriguez-Cruz; Jensy Anabella Sanchez-
Rodriguez; Josselin Daniela Pineda-Rodriguez,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A212 986 758
A212 986 759
A212 986 760
Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Gresia Ivet Rodriguez-Cruz, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 22-60092 Document: 00516493466 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2022
No. 22-60092
her appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). (Her two minor children seek asylum
as derivative beneficiaries of Rodriquez.) She asserts the BIA erred because
she established: past persecution; a well-founded fear of future persecution;
and a nexus between the harm alleged and a protected ground. (Rodriguez
does not contest the denial of CAT relief.)
Rodriguez’ contentions concerning the IJ’s future-persecution
determination are unexhausted; therefore, our court lacks jurisdiction to
consider them. E.g., Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 359–60 (5th
Cir. 2022) (explaining petitioner must administratively exhaust claims by
presenting them to BIA); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (judicial review of orders of
removal).
In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s, to the extent it
influenced the BIA), legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; factual findings,
for substantial evidence. E.g., Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–
18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under the substantial-evidence standard, petitioner must
demonstrate “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder
could reach a contrary conclusion”. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134
(5th Cir. 2006).
Rodriguez fails to show the evidence compels a conclusion that she
showed past persecution. E.g., Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187 (5th Cir.
2004) (applying substantial-evidence standard to question whether IJ erred
by finding no past persecution). Although past persecution does not require
physical harm, it must amount to extreme conduct. E.g., Gjetani v. Barr, 968
F.3d 393, 395 (5th Cir. 2020) (noting asylum requires petitioner to
demonstrate “systematic, sustained pattern of assaults or other acts of
oppression—not individual or even a handful of assaults or threats”).
2
Case: 22-60092 Document: 00516493466 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/03/2022
No. 22-60092
Rodriguez alleged she experienced harassment, threats, and requests for
sexual favors, but this does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s.
Id. at 398–99.
Because past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution
is an essential element of claims for asylum and withholding, Rodriguez has
not met the substantial-evidence standard for these claims. E.g., Majd v.
Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, our court need not
consider her nexus assertions. E.g., INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25
(1976) (stating “[a]s a general rule courts and agencies are not required to
make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results
they reach”).
DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3