Ingrid Ruiz-Laju v. Jefferson Sessions, III

Case: 17-60080 Document: 00514358009 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-60080 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 22, 2018 INGRID RUIZ-LAJU, Lyle W. Cayce 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. A205 730 265 Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ingrid Ruiz-Laju, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). She contends that the BIA erred in concluding that she had failed to show that she was a member of a particular social group, comprised of a subset * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-60080 Document: 00514358009 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2018 No. 17-60080 of her nuclear family that was threatened by extortionists after her parents failed to pay the demanded money. The BIA acknowledged that a family unit could constitute a particular social group. However, the BIA concluded that Ruiz-Laju had not shown that she was targeted on account of her family membership but instead in an effort to compel her mother to pay. See Ramirez- Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 492 (5th Cir. 2015). In addition, Ruiz-Laju asserts that the BIA erred in concluding that she did not suffer persecution on a protected ground. This court has held that unfulfilled threats against an individual typically do not rise to the level of persecution. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2004). The BIA also noted that Ruiz-Laju was not entitled to relief because the threats arose from her parents’ failure to pay extortionists and this court had held that economic extortion does not rise to the level of persecution based on a protected ground. See Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885, 890 (5th Cir. 2014); Castillo- Enriquez v. Holder, 690 F.3d 667, 668 (5th Cir. 2012). Although Ruiz-Laju correctly notes that the extortionists did not demand payments from her personally, she has not shown that the record compels a contrary conclusion from that reached by the BIA. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009). Ruiz-Laju also challenges the BIA’s conclusion that she failed to establish a reasonable fear of future persecution because she was able to relocate within Guatemala. Because she did not establish past persecution, Ruiz-Laju was required to establish that internal relocation would not be reasonable. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i). She argues that because it was possible that the extortionists could find her family despite her parents’ move to a rural area, relocation was ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals