Case: 22-60448 Document: 00516693341 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED March 29, 2023 No. 22-60448 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________ Evelin Beatriz Cisneros-Saravia; Roni Odir Cisneros; Nayely Stefany Cisneros; Karla Beatriz Cisneros, Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. ______________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A209 076 568, A209 076 569, A209 076 570, A209 076 571 ______________________________ Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Evelin Beatriz Cisneros-Saravia and her three children, Roni Odir Cisneros, Nayely Stefany Cisneros, and Karla Beatriz Cisneros, natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal and affirming the decision of the _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-60448 Document: 00516693341 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2023 No. 22-60448 Immigration Judge (IJ) denying them asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 1 We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo, but its factual findings for substantial evidence. Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786 (5th Cir. 2016); Chen v. Gonzalez, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). We review the decision of the BIA, considering the IJ’s decision only to the extent it impacted that of the BIA. Id. at 785. For purposes of review, the BIA presumed Cisneros-Saravia’s credibility. The agency nonetheless determined that the record demonstrated that the perpetrators’ motive for their extortion demands was primarily criminal and financial in nature. The BIA therefore concluded that she failed to show the nexus between the harm and a protected category as required for asylum. Cisneros-Saravia’s vague contentions, unsupported by citation to the record, that the gang targeted her because she might “be able to assist them” fail to compel a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA. See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 492-93 (5th Cir. 2015); Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134; Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 351 (5th Cir. 2002). Because a nexus between the harm and a protected ground is an essential element of an asylum claim, Cisneros-Saravia’s failure to show error in the BIA’s nexus determination is fatal to her asylum claim. See Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 265, 269 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022). We therefore do not consider her remaining arguments as to asylum. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). Cisneros-Saravia challenges the agency’s denial of withholding of removal as well, arguing that withholding has a more relaxed nexus standard _____________________ 1 Because Cisneros-Saravia is the lead petitioner and her children are riders on her application and derivative beneficiaries of her asylum application, we refer only to Cisneros-Saravia. 2 Case: 22-60448 Document: 00516693341 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/29/2023 No. 22-60448 than asylum. Under this court’s precedent, however, Cisneros-Saravia’s failure …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals