Case: 21-60929 Document: 00516653964 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-60929 FILED
Summary Calendar February 23, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Elida Hernandez-Guerrero,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A205 638 341
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Elida Hernandez-Guerrero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing her appeal from a denial by the Immigration Judge (IJ) of her
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60929 Document: 00516653964 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2023
No. 21-60929
Convention Against Torture (CAT). She based her application on her
kidnapping and assault by unknown individuals, which culminated in an
extortion demand and on other extortion by gang members that she
experienced as a business owner. Although we ordinarily review only the
BIA’s reasoning, we may review the IJ’s decision to the extent it influences
or is adopted by the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).
Contrary to Hernandez-Guerrero’s challenge, the record does not
compel a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA that she failed to establish
the required nexus between the harm she experienced and a protected
ground. See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 231 (5th Cir. 2019). This
record, including Hernandez-Guerrero’s own testimony, substantially
supports the BIA’s finding that the assault and extortion were criminally
financially motivated. See id. at 224. The lack of a nexus is dispositive of
Hernandez-Guerrero’s asylum claim, see Vasquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th
265, 269 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022), and it is
therefore unnecessary to address her remaining arguments as to asylum. See
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
As to Hernandez-Guerrero’s challenge that the immigration court
lacked jurisdiction because the notice to appear did not state the date and
time of the hearing, we have expressly rejected the argument. See Garcia v.
Garland, 28 F.4th 644, 646-48 (5th Cir. 2022).
Hernandez-Guerrero does not challenge the agency’s conclusion that
she failed to establish entitlement to CAT relief and has thus abandoned such
an argument. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). As
well, we lack jurisdiction to consider Hernandez-Guerrero’s argument,
raised for the first time before this court, that, under the withholding of
removal standard, she must establish only that a protected ground is “a
reason” for the persecution, rather than a “central reason” as is required for
2
Case: 21-60929 Document: 00516653964 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/23/2023
No. 21-60929
asylum claims. See Tibakweitira v. Wilkinson, 986 F.3d 905, 913 (5th Cir.
2021).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED in part and
DISMISSED in part.
3