Case: 18-60367 Document: 00515003035 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-60367 June 19, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk GLENDA JOHANNA MENDEZ-GALDAMEZ; KILBER ALEXANDER HERNANDEZ-MENDEZ, Petitioners v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 364 630 BIA No. A208 364 631 Before REAVLEY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Glenda Johanna Mendez-Galdamez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, and her 13-year-old son, Kilber Alexander Hernandez-Mendez (a derivative applicant), have petitioned for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-60367 Document: 00515003035 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2019 No. 18-60367 (CAT). In her application, Mendez-Galdamez asserted that she has a reasonable fear of persecution by a drug dealer based on her membership in a particular social group defined by her familial relationship with Kilber’s father (Marlon Hernandez), who was murdered in Guatemala in 2012. An alien seeking asylum must demonstrate past persecution or a well- founded fear of persecution because of one of five protected grounds, including membership in a particular social group. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(A), (B)(i), & 1101(a)(42)(A). The alien must prove that the protected ground “was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 349 (5th Cir. 2002) (“alien [is required] to prove some nexus between the persecution and the five protected grounds”); § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). In its decision, the BIA concluded that Mendez-Galdamez had not shown that she was eligible for asylum because she had not met her burden of establishing that she had suffered past persecution or that she has a well- founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. The BIA’s determination will be upheld “unless the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find otherwise.” Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109, 113 (5th Cir. 2006). The BIA determined that written threats received by Mendez-Galdamez did not amount to past persecution and that Mendez-Galdamez had not shown that the murders of Marlon and her sister-in-law (who was also murdered) were intended to harm her. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Tesfamichael, 469 F.3d at 113, 116-17; see also Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2004). Nor does the record compel the conclusion that the threats were centrally motivated by Mendez-Galdamez’s membership in 2 Case: 18-60367 Document: 00515003035 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/19/2019 No. 18-60367 the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals