Case: 20-60209 Document: 00516013005 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 14, 2021 No. 20-60209 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Enma Rivera-Sorto, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A087 592 248 Before Barksdale, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Enma Rivera-Sorto, a citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denying: asylum; withholding of removal; and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). She contends the court erred * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-60209 Document: 00516013005 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2021 No. 20-60209 in concluding she failed to establish past persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on a protected ground. In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s decision, to the extent it influenced the BIA), legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; factual findings, for substantial evidence. E.g., Orellano-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under the substantial-evidence standard, “petitioner has the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion”. Id. at 518 (citation omitted). To qualify for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate, inter alia, either past persecution, or a “well-founded fear of future persecution”. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b) (asylum eligibility). To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant “must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution upon return”. Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). The standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than for asylum. Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518. Therefore, an applicant who fails to meet the asylum standard cannot meet the withholding-of-removal standard. Id. Rivera asserts she suffered persecution in the form of domestic violence from her boyfriend, the father of her child. According to the IJ, her claims failed because she did not prove a necessary element, her government’s ability and willingness to protect her. See Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109, 113 (5th Cir. 2006) (explaining “[p]ast persecution entails harm inflicted on the alien on account of a statutorily enumerated ground by the government or forces that a government is unable or unwilling to control”). After testimony by Rivera, the IJ noted Salvadorian courts gave her favorable rulings and orders and law enforcement protected her daughter from her boyfriend. 2 Case: 20-60209 Document: 00516013005 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/14/2021 No. 20-60209 Rivera provides no contentions regarding the basis for the IJ and BIA’s denial of her application. Her brief in this court does not dispute the validity or correctness of the IJ and the BIA’s findings. She has, therefore, abandoned any claim of error. See …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals