Case: 22-60179 Document: 00516737174 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED May 3, 2023 No. 22-60179 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk Merlyn Roxana Irias-Amaya; Wilmer Astul Irias-Amaya, Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. ______________________________ Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A206 444 380, A206 444 381 ______________________________ Before Clement, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Merlyn Roxana Irias-Amaya and Wilmer Astul Irias-Amaya, siblings who are natives and citizens of Honduras, timely petition this court for review of a BIA decision denying asylum and withholding of removal. The petition is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-60179 Document: 00516737174 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2023 No. 22-60179 Standard of Review On petition for review of a BIA decision, this court reviews factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). The substantial evidence standard applies to review of decisions denying asylum and withholding of removal. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). “We review the BIA’s findings of facts under the substantial evidence standard, which requires that the decision of the BIA be based on the evidence presented and that the decision be substantially reasonable.” Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under this standard, reversal is improper unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Carbajal- Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). “The petitioner has ‘the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.’” Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518 (quoting Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.2006)). Normally, this court looks only to the BIA’s decision but when the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision, without assigning reasons, as it did here, this court reviews the IJ’s decision. Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 594 (5th Cir. 2006). Discussion To qualify for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate “either past persecution or a reasonable, well-founded fear of future persecution on account of” race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 360 (5th Cir. 2014); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Here, the IJ found that Merlyn was persecuted in the past, but that Wilmer was not and that neither faced harm on account of a protected ground. Both siblings argue that they were persecuted on account of a membership in a particular social group, 2 Case: 22-60179 Document: 00516737174 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/03/2023 No. 22-60179 specifically, their family. 1 The proposed particular social group must be “at least one central reason” for the alleged persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). The IJ found that the siblings failed to establish a nexus between the siblings’ claims of persecution and their membership in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals