Case: 18-60830 Document: 00516426836 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 10, 2022 No. 18-60830 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Ivonne Monserrat Arriaga Gonzalez; Hiram Mondragon Arriaga; Ximena Mondragon Arriaga, Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A208 979 210 Agency No. A208 979 211 Agency No. A208 979 212 Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Ivonne Monserrat Arriaga Gonzalez, together with her minor children Hiram Mondragon Arriaga and Ximena Mondragon Arriaga (the * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 18-60830 Document: 00516426836 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2022 No. 18-60830 petitioners), natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing their appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We generally review only the BIA’s decision except to the extent that the IJ’s ruling influences the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). The petitioners do not challenge the agency’s conclusion that they failed to establish persecution on account of Arriaga Gonzalez’s imputed political opinion, and any such argument is abandoned. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). They do, however, challenge the BIA’s conclusion that they failed to establish the required nexus between their family-based particular social group (PSG) and their feared persecution. See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019). Evidence in the record indicates that any harm the petitioners fear upon return to Mexico would not be on account of their family-based PSG but rather private criminality. Accordingly, the evidence does not compel a conclusion that the petitioners demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 270 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022); Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019); Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 492-93 (5th Cir. 2015). Because the lack of nexus is dispositive of the asylum claim, see Gonzales-Veliz, 938 F.3d at 224-25; Ramirez-Mejia, 794 F.3d at 493, it is unnecessary to address the petitioners’ arguments regarding whether the harm rose to the level of persecution and whether there is an objectively reasonable fear of future harm. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule, courts and agencies are not required to make 2 Case: 18-60830 Document: 00516426836 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/10/2022 No. 18-60830 findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”) Because the petitioners have failed to demonstrate …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals