Case: 22-60126 Document: 00516637989 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60126
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ February 7, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Luz Marina Garcia-Romero, Clerk
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A206 710 266
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Luz Marina Garcia-Romero, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA),
dismissing her appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT).
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60126 Document: 00516637989 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2023
No. 22-60126
On review of an order of the BIA, this court examines “the BIA’s
decision and only consider[s] the IJ’s decision to the extent that it influenced
the BIA.” Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). Because the
BIA agreed with the IJ’s analysis and conclusions, we review both decisions.
See id.
This court reviews the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence,
and it will not reverse such findings unless the petitioner shows that “the
evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude
against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536-37 (quote at 537) (5th Cir.
2009). Among the findings that this court reviews for substantial evidence is
the factual conclusion that an alien is not eligible for asylum, withholding of
removal, or CAT protection. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir.
2005).
Garcia-Romero contends that the factors of Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N.
Dec. 526, 532-34 (BIA 2011), support the finding that she established the
requisite nexus between the persecution she experienced or fears in
Honduras and her political opinion, but this is simply an argument that the
BIA should have weighed the evidence differently, which is insufficient to
reverse the BIA’s decision. As this court has explained, “the possibility of
drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not preclude
an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial
evidence.” Revencu v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 396, 401 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal
quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted).
Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s findings that Garcia-
Romero failed to show that her abusive father was motivated by or even aware
of her feminist political opinion or that he attributed such an opinion to her.
See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536. The BIA reasonably found that Garcia-Romero’s
father abused her and her siblings “for personal reasons peculiar to himself
2
Case: 22-60126 Document: 00516637989 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/07/2023
No. 22-60126
and the family,” namely that he was a violent person who was obsessed with
Garcia-Romero’s mother and wanted to make her suffer. See id. at 537. This
court has upheld the denial of asylum where the applicant demonstrated
“purely personal” motives. Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir.
2004). Thus, the BIA did not err in rejecting Garcia-Romero’s challenge to
the determination that she was not entitled to asylum or withholding of re-
moval for failure to show the required nexus between the alleged persecution
and a protected ground. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344; Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d
899, 906 (5th Cir. 2004).
Garcia-Romero next argues that the BIA erred in finding that she did
not have a well-founded fear of future persecution because she could
reasonably relocate within Honduras to avoid harm. See Eduard v. Ashcroft,
379 F.3d 182, 194 (5th Cir. 2004). Though she acknowledges that she was
able to live with her mother’s family in another town unharmed for several
months, she argues that the IJ failed to consider her testimony that she left
Honduras because she feared that she would not be able to continue to live
there safely after hearing rumors that her father was looking for her.
Contrary to Garcia-Romero’s argument, however, the record
confirms that the IJ considered this testimony. The BIA also expressly
addressed this testimony in affirming the IJ’s findings related to internal
relocation. Accordingly, the record does not compel the reversal of the BIA’s
determination that Garcia-Romero had failed to show that it would be
unreasonable for her to relocate within Honduras to avoid her father’s abuse.
See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536-37; Eduard, 379 F.3d at 194.
Finally, Garcia-Romero argues that the BIA erred in adopting the IJ’s
denial of CAT protection. According to Garcia-Romero, her credible
testimony about the abuse she experienced in Honduras, along with the
country conditions evidence showing widespread corruption within law
3
Case: 22-60126 Document: 00516637989 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/07/2023
No. 22-60126
enforcement and societal violence against women in Honduras, establishes a
clear probability that she would be tortured if removed to Honduras.
To receive protection under the CAT, an alien must establish that it
is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to her home
country by or with the acquiescence of government officials acting under the
color of law. Hakim v. Holder, 628 F.3d 151, 155 (5th Cir. 2010). As this court
has explained, “a government’s inability to protect its citizens does not
amount to acquiescence.” Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 911 (5th Cir. 2019);
see Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 351 (5th Cir. 2006) (agreeing
with other circuits that “neither the failure to apprehend the persons
threatening the alien, nor the lack of financial resources to eradicate the
threat or risk of torture constitute sufficient state action for purposes” of the
CAT). Accordingly, the BIA reasonably found that Garcia-Romero was not
entitled to CAT protection because she had failed to show that the Honduran
government would consent or acquiesce to her torture. See Wang, 569 F.3d
at 537.
The petition for review is DENIED.
4