Case: 22-60384 Document: 00516791472 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED June 19, 2023 No. 22-60384 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________ Maryoris Walkiria Barahona-Pineda; Allan Eduardo Guzman-Barahona; Brithany Holibed Guzman- Barahona, Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. ______________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A215 933 353, A215 933 355, A215 933 354 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Petitioner Maryoris Walkiria Barahona-Pineda and her minor children Allan Eduardo Guzman-Barahona and Brithany Holibed Guzman-Barahona, (collectively, “Petitioners”), are natives and citizens of Honduras. They request review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-60384 Document: 00516791472 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2023 No. 22-60384 affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review the BIA’s decision, but we consider the Immigration Judge’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). We review factual findings for substantial evidence and legal determinations de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant must prove that he or she is unwilling or unable to return to his or 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.’” Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). The applicant must present “‘specific, detailed facts’” to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994)). Persecution is not mere harassment or discrimination, but instead “is a specific term that ‘does not encompass all treatment that our society regards as unfair, unjust, or even unlawful or unconstitutional.’” Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 397–98 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006)). Even if a petitioner claims that he or she suffered persecution when their family vehicle was set on fire, one incident of arson is not extreme enough to compel a finding of persecution. See id. Neither is receipt of a variety of phone calls and letters threatening a petitioner’s life sufficient to show past persecution because the threats were “exaggerated, non-specific, or lacking in immediacy.” Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958 F.3d 402, 407 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal citation and quotation 2 Case: 22-60384 Document: 00516791472 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/19/2023 No. 22-60384 marks omitted). “Persecution requires more. As our distinguished colleagues from courts of appeals across the country have elaborated, it has the quality of a sustained, systematic effort to target an …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals