Case: 23-60013 Document: 00516841870 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 23-60013 August 1, 2023 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Jenny Yaquelin Canales-Galindo; Skarleth Gissel Rubio-Canales, Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. ______________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A209 898 822, A209 898 823 ______________________________ Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Jenny Yaquelin Canales-Galindo and her child, Skarleth Gissel Rubio- Canales, are natives and citizens of Honduras. They petition for review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of their appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of Canales-Galindo’s application for _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-60013 Document: 00516841870 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2023 No. 23-60013 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Rubio-Canales is a derivative beneficiary of her mother’s application. We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s underlying decision only if it impacted the BIA’s decision, as it did here. See Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Findings of fact, including the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may not reverse a factual finding unless the evidence compels such a reversal—i.e., the evidence must be “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Sharma, 729 F.3d at 411. Regarding her asylum and withholding of removal claims, Canales- Galindo has failed to show that the record compels the conclusion that her former partner abused her on account of her membership in the proffered particular social groups of “persons not protected by the authorities” or “wom[e]n that [are] mistreated and subjected to domestic violence,” rather than based on personal and criminal motives. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134; Sharma, 729 F.3d at 411-12. Conduct driven by purely personal or criminal motives does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground for purposes of asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004); Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 227-28 (5th Cir. 2019). As to her CAT claim, Canales-Galindo has failed to show that the record compels the conclusion that she would likely be tortured with the acquiescence of the Honduran government. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134, 1141. Although her abusive former partner threatened her with his claimed 2 Case: 23-60013 Document: 00516841870 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/01/2023 No. 23-60013 connection to the police, Canales-Galindo testified that she is unaware if he is actually so connected and, further, that she did not follow her doctor’s advice to file a police report. She argues only that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals