Case: 23-60036 Document: 00516848162 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
____________ Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 23-60036 August 7, 2023
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
____________
Clerk
Miriam Marisela Guardado-Carias; Gabriel Alejando
Soriano-Guardado,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency Nos. A206 803 929,
A206 803 930
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Southwick and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Miriam Marisela Guardado-Carias, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing
her appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60036 Document: 00516848162 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2023
No. 23-60036
Torture (CAT). (Her son, Gabriel Alejando Soriano-Guardado, is a
derivative beneficiary on her application.)
We review the BIA’s decision, considering the IJ’s decision only to
the extent it influenced the BIA. Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958 F.3d 402, 406
(5th Cir. 2020). Factual determinations that an alien is ineligible for asylum,
withholding of removal, or CAT protection are reviewed for substantial
evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Under that
standard, Guardado “must show that the evidence was so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could conclude against it”. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS,
78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).
Regarding asylum, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that Guardado failed to demonstrate past persecution or a
well-founded fear of persecution.
For past persecution vel non, the threats recounted by Guardado were
vague and lacked immediacy and were therefore insufficient to constitute
persecution. See Munoz-Granados, 958 F.3d at 407. The evidence does not
compel the conclusion that the past harm rose to the level of persecution. See
id.; Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 910 (5th Cir. 2019); see also Ramirez-Mejia
v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015) (providing economic extortion is
not a recognized form of persecution).
Unable to show past persecution, she had the burden of establishing a
well-founded fear of persecution, including that relocation within her home
country would be unreasonable. Munoz-Granados, 958 F.3d at 407; 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.13(b)(2)(ii), (b)(3). The record shows the threatening conduct relating
to the death of a cousin ceased after Guardado’s family relocated to live with
Guardado’s sister. The decision to move away from the sister’s
neighborhood due to general fear of gangs is insufficient to satisfy her burden
regarding relocation. See Munoz-Granados, 958 F.3d at 408 (“[A] fear of
2
Case: 23-60036 Document: 00516848162 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/07/2023
No. 23-60036
general violence and civil disorder is not sufficient to support a fear of future
persecution”.).
Additionally, when Guardado’s husband was subjected to monetary
extortion years later in a different city, the family did not attempt to relocate
within Honduras before leaving for the United States. Guardado presented
no evidence of further harm to her family during their remaining time in
Honduras or that any relatives still in Honduras were being harmed. She fails
to show the evidence compels a determination that relocation would be
unreasonable.
Therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s relocation finding
and its denial of asylum. See id. at 407–08; Cruz v. Barr, 929 F.3d 304, 309–
10 (5th Cir. 2019). And, because she fails to demonstrate eligibility for
asylum, she cannot satisfy the higher burden for withholding of removal. See
Munoz-Granados, 958 F.3d at 408.
Finally, for CAT protection, Guardado had to show it is more likely
than not she would be tortured in Honduras by, or with the acquiescence of,
a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.18(a)(1). Given that the claimed harm did not rise to the level of
persecution, it follows that it does not meet the higher bar of torture. E.g.,
Munoz-Granados, 958 F.3d at 408; Qorane, 919 F.3d at 911. Therefore,
substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief.
DENIED.
3