Case: 17-60602 Document: 00514570108 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/25/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-60602 FILED Summary Calendar July 25, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce MARINA BENITEZ RAMOS, Clerk Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 727 477 Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Marina Benitez Ramos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In a hearing before the IJ, Benitez Ramos testified that after she reported the attempted rape of her daughter by a gang member to the * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 17-60602 Document: 00514570108 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/25/2018 No. 17-60602 Salvadoran police, she received two phone calls from someone threatening to kill her and her family if she did not drop the charges against her daughter’s attacker. She also testified that, after her daughter’s attacker was prosecuted and convicted, a man shot at her while she was on her way home from work. She believed that the phone calls and the shooting were perpetrated by other members of the gang to which her daughter’s attacker belonged. We generally review only the decision of the BIA, but we will review the IJ’s decision where, as in this case, it affects the BIA’s analysis. Le v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 98, 104 (5th Cir. 2016). Determinations of ineligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under CAT are reviewed for substantial evidence. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). “Under the substantial evidence standard, reversal is improper unless we decide not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Benitez Ramos carries the burden of demonstrating that the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. The Attorney General has the discretion to grant asylum to “an alien who is unable or unwilling to return to [her] home 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.’” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). To qualify for asylum, the persecution must be committed by either “the government or forces that a government is unable or unwilling to control.” Tesfamichael v. Gonzalez, 469 F.3d 109, 113 (5th Cir. 2006). Benitez Ramos argues that the two phone calls and shooting qualify as past persecution; that the circumstantial evidence supports a finding that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals