Marbella Santoyo-Pita v. Jefferson Sessions

Case: 17-60222 Document: 00514396406 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 17-60222 March 21, 2018 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MARBELLA SANTOYO-PITA, also known as Marbella Sontoyo-Pita; ALBERTO MUNOZ-SANTOYO; SUSANA MUNOZ-SANTOYO; MONICA MUNOZ-SANTOYO; PEDRO MUNOZ-SANTOYO; JAVIER MUNOZ- SANTOYO; ISIDRO MUNOZ-SANTOYO; EVERARDO MUNOZ-SANTOYO; GILDARDO MUNOZ-SANTOYO; EDUVIGES MUNOZ-SANTOYO; EMANUEL MUNOZ-SANTOYO; VICTOR MUNOZ-SANTOYO; ANABELLA MUNOZ-SANTOYO; LEOBARDO MUNOZ-SANTOYO, Petitioners v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA Nos. A206 877 444, A206 877 432, A206 877 433, A206 877 434, A206 877 435, A206 877 436, A206 877 437, A206 877 438, A206 877 439, A206 877 440, A206 877 441, A206 877 442, A206 877 443, A206 877 446 Case: 17-60222 Document: 00514396406 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2018 No. 17-60222 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Marbella Santoyo-Pita and her children Aberto, Susana, Monica, Pedro, Javier, Isidro, Everardo, Gildardo, Eduviges, Emanuel, Victor, Anabella, and Leobardo Munoz-Santoyo petition this court to review the denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review for substantial evidence the findings that the petitioners were not eligible for such relief. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). We will affirm a finding unless the “evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The petitioners have “the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review the final decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and will also review the ruling of the immigration judge (IJ) insofar as it affected the BIA’s decision. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). The petitioners challenge the finding that they were not eligible for asylum and withholding of removal because they failed to show that any persecution was, or will be, on account of a protected ground. First, they assert that they face persecution because of the imputed political opinion of Santoyo- Pita’s husband and the children’s father, Isidro Munoz Gutierrez. However, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Salvador Guzman’s murder of Munoz Gutierrez “was the culmination of a history of personal and land use * 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. 2 Case: 17-60222 Document: 00514396406 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/21/2018 No. 17-60222 disputes, and appears to have been motivated by personal hatred.” Moreover, even if Guzman had been motivated by political reasons, the past-persecution of a family member cannot be imputed to the aliens seeking asylum. See Morales ...

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