Mendoza-Erazo v. Garland

Case: 20-60490 Document: 00516107012 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 24, 2021 No. 20-60490 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Jonathan Joel Mendoza-Erazo, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 423 019 Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Jonathan Joel Mendoza-Erazo, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum and withholding of removal. He claims that he was persecuted, and * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-60490 Document: 00516107012 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2021 No. 20-60490 feared future persecution, based on his membership in a particular social group defined as “imputed homosexuality.” Generally, this court reviews the final decision of the BIA and will only consider the IJ’s decision where it influenced the decision of the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and rulings of law de novo. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009); Zhu, 493 F.3d at 594. We review for substantial evidence the conclusion that an alien is not eligible for asylum and withholding of removal. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2005). To be eligible for asylum, Mendoza-Erazo must show that he is unable or unwilling to return to his country “because of persecution or a well- founded fear of persecution on account of,” as relevant here, “membership in a particular social group.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). “[P]ersecution is an extreme concept,” Arif v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 677, 680 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and “does not encompass all treatment that our society regards as unfair, unjust, or even unlawful or unconstitutional,” Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Mendoza-Erazo is ineligible for relief because he has not established the requisite nexus between persecution and a protected ground. See Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2009). The evidence does not establish that he was targeted because of his imputed sexuality, see id., or that the harm he suffered—an attempted assault and two threats over a five-year period— constitute persecution, see Majd, 446 F.3d at 595. Because Mendoza-Erazo failed to demonstrate his entitlement to asylum, he also failed to demonstrate 2 Case: 20-60490 Document: 00516107012 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/24/2021 No. 20-60490 his entitlement to withholding of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). The petition …

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