Case: 22-60122 Document: 00516582194 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60122
Summary Calendar FILED
December 19, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
Alejandra Hernandez Zavala, Clerk
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A087 447 625
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Alejandra Hernandez Zavala, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
this court to review a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
affirming the denial by the Immigration Judge (IJ) of her application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). We lack jurisdiction to review Hernandez Zavala’s
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60122 Document: 00516582194 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2022
No. 22-60122
procedural due process challenge to the IJ’s denial of a continuance for her
to obtain further evidence, which issue she failed to present to the BIA in her
brief on appeal and the BIA did not address on its own. See Fakhuri v.
Garland, 28 F.4th 623, 627 (5th Cir. 2022); Claudio v. Holder, 601 F.3d 316,
318-19 (5th Cir. 2010).
As to her challenge to the denial of deferral of removal under the CAT,
we review the agency’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for
substantial evidence. See Monsonyem v. Garland, 36 F.4th 639, 642 (5th Cir.
2022); Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007). We review only
the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the IJ’s decision influenced it. See
Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Contrary to Hernandez
Zavala’s assertion that the IJ applied the wrong legal standard and failed to
consider all of the evidence, the record reveals that the agency reviewed the
evidence in some detail, both as to country conditions and as to Hernandez
Zavala’s situation. See Suate-Orellana v. Barr, 979 F.3d 1056, 1062 (5th Cir.
2020). Neither Hernandez Zavala’s speculative claim that she is generally
vulnerable to future torture as a woman, nor her factually unsupported claim
that she is vulnerable as part of a group of women in domestic relationships
that they cannot leave, compels a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s finding
that she failed to show it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if
removed to Mexico. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1139 (5th Cir.
2006); Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017). Substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Hernandez Zavala is thus
ineligible for protection under the CAT. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134; Suate-
Orellana, 979 F.3d at 1062.
The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in
part.
2