Case: 19-60810 Document: 00515966373 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 5, 2021 No. 19-60810 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Edgar Ivan Zuniga-Sanchez, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 742 210 Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Edgar Ivan Zuniga-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions us to review a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Zuniga-Sanchez experienced sexual abuse which the Immigration Judge determined to be past persecution. However, the Immigration Judge also determined that the * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-60810 Document: 00515966373 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2021 No. 19-60810 Government rebutted the presumption that Zuniga-Sanchez will experience future persecution because his abuse stopped years before he entered the United States. The Immigration Judge also determined that there were locations to which Zuniga-Sanchez could reasonably relocate. The Board affirmed the findings of the Immigration Judge. Zuniga-Sanchez argues that there has not been a fundamental change in the circumstances of his future persecution because change in the country conditions in Mexico has not been proven. He further asserts that the proposed relocation areas are not reasonable. We are not compelled to find that the Board has erred in determining that the presumption of future persecution has been rebutted. The specific harm that the Immigration Judge determined to be persecution has no evidence of recurring and general conditions of danger do not indicate future persecution is more likely than not to occur. Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109, 119 (5th Cir. 2006). We are also not compelled to find that relocation is not reasonable. Zuniga-Sanchez highlights potential problems with the proposed locations, but the record does not compel the conclusion that relocation is unreasonable when considering all factors. See 8 C.F.R. ยง 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), (b)(3). DENIED. 2 19-60810 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ca5 5th Cir. Zuniga Sanchez v. Garland 5 August 2021 Immigration Unpublished fce2091f5ef896e52743bb3e8e069266e77780eb
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals