Case: 21-60840 Document: 00516409816 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 27, 2022 No. 21-60840 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Henry Noel Gomez-Ponce; Dayana Lilieth Gomez-Rivas; Nagory Yuliery Gomez-Tercero, Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A215 893 929 BIA No. A215 893 928 BIA No. A215 893 927 Before Jolly, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Henry Noel Gomez-Ponce, Dayana Lilieth Gomez-Rivas, and Nagory Yuliery Gomez-Tercero, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-60840 Document: 00516409816 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2022 No. 21-60840 review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from the denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We lack jurisdiction to consider their contention that their particular social groups (PSGs) based on gang opposition were cognizable, as that claim is unexhausted. See Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 359-60 (5th Cir. 2022). The petitioners challenge the BIA’s conclusion that they failed to establish a nexus between their family-based PSGs and the alleged persecution, which we review for substantial evidence. See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019). They rely on evidence that the gang threatened to kill the son of Gomez-Ponce’s partner and “cut [Gomez- Ponce’s] family in pieces” because the youth refused the gang’s demands that he sell drugs for the gang. According to the petitioners, that evidence showed that the familial relationship between Gomez-Ponce and the youth was a central reason why the gang targeted Gomez-Ponce. Because the cited evidence indicates that the gang’s motives were recruitment and retaliation for failed recruitment efforts, the petitioners fail to show that the evidence compels a conclusion that there was a nexus between the alleged persecution and their family-based PSGs. See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 492- 93 (5th Cir. 2015); Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 270 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022). Additionally, the petitioners challenge the BIA’s conclusion that neither Gomez-Ponce nor Gomez-Rivas expressed an anti-gang political opinion, which we also review for substantial evidence. See Changsheng Du v. Barr, 975 F.3d 444, 447-48 (5th Cir. 2020). They contend that Gomez- Ponce expressed political opposition to the gang by refusing its extortionate demands for payments and that Gomez-Rivas expressed an anti-gang political opinion by refusing to date a gang member and become a member of 2 Case: 21-60840 Document: 00516409816 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/27/2022 No. 21-60840 that gang. Gomez-Ponce’s testimony instead shows that he has and will resist the Mara 18 gang’s extortionate demands for a non-political reason— his inability to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals