Case: 22-60056 Document: 00516578017 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60056
Summary Calendar FILED
December 14, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
David Antonio Loza-Aguilar, Clerk
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A205 455 367
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
David Antonio Loza-Aguilar, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) of his appeal from a decision of the immigration judge denying him
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). We review for substantial evidence, see Zhang v. Gonzales,
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60056 Document: 00516578017 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/14/2022
No. 22-60056
432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005), and we consider the IJ’s decision only
insofar as it influenced the BIA, see Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th
Cir. 2018).
Loza-Aguilar reiterates his testimony before the immigration court
that he was threatened once in 2011 and beaten once as a worker for a political
party before the 2012 elections in El Salvador. He does not dispute that this
single beating lasted only approximately 20 seconds and that he did not
require medical care after this incident. On this record, substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s conclusion that the harm did not amount to past
persecution. See Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2020); Zhang,
432 F.3d at 344; Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2005). As to
his fear of future persecution, Loza-Aguilar fails to argue, much less cite
evidence in the record showing, that any individual or group in El Salvador
wishes to harm him should he return so as to compel a conclusion contrary
to the BIA’s determination that he failed to show a likelihood of future
persecution. See Sanchez-Amador v. Garland, 30 F.4th 529, 533–34 (5th Cir.
2022).
Because Loza-Aguilar’s failure to show past persecution or a well-
founded fear of future persecution is dispositive of his requests for asylum,
this court need not consider his remaining arguments on that issue. See INS
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam). Moreover, Loza-
Aguilar’s failure to satisfy the asylum standard, see Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344,
prevents him from satisfying the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal, see Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
As to his CAT claim, Loza-Aguilar contends that gang and state
security force violence is increasing in El Salvador, and that unspecified
persecutors “do not relent with their targets.” These vague and conclusory
contentions do not compel a conclusion, contrary to that of the BIA, that it is
2
Case: 22-60056 Document: 00516578017 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/14/2022
No. 22-60056
more likely than not that Loza-Aguilar will be subject to torture with the
consent or acquiescence of the Honduran government upon repatriation. See
Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015).
The petition for review is DENIED.
3