Case: 20-60402 Document: 00515906699 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 21, 2021
No. 20-60402
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Fredy William Alvarenga-Alvarado,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A209-900-693
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Fredy William Alvarenga-Alvarado, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)
denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60402 Document: 00515906699 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
No. 20-60402
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Alvarenga-Alvarado contends
that he was persecuted by police officers, and fears future persecution, based
on his anti-police corruption political opinion and his membership in a
particular social group (“PSG”) defined as “Salvadoran Cattle Farmers.”
We review the BIA’s final decision and will only consider the IJ’s
decision when it influenced the BIA’s decision. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d
588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). We review factual findings under the substantial
evidence standard and legal questions de novo, giving deference to the BIA’s
interpretation of any ambiguous immigration statutes. Orellana-Monson v.
Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2012). Whether an applicant is eligible
for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT is reviewed for
substantial evidence. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006)
(citations omitted).
To be eligible for asylum, Alvarenga-Alvarado must show that he is
unable or unwilling to return to his country “because of persecution or a well-
founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42)(A); see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). Alvarenga-Alvarado has failed
to show that the harm he suffered in El Salvador rises to the level of
persecution, or that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on
account of a protected ground. See Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 398 (5th
Cir. 2020); Gonzalez-Soto v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 682, 683–84 (5th Cir. 2016).
Because Alvarenga-Alvarado has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to
asylum, he has also failed to demonstrate his entitlement to withholding of
removal. See Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006). Finally,
Alvarenga-Alvarado has failed to establish that it was more likely than not
that he will be tortured if he is returned to El Salvador. See Chen, 470 F.3d at
1134.
2
Case: 20-60402 Document: 00515906699 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
No. 20-60402
Accordingly, Alvarenga-Alvarado’s petition for review is DENIED.
3