Miranda-Valentin v. Wilkinson

Case: 19-60568 Document: 00515768430 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/05/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 5, 2021 No. 19-60568 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Margarita Ancela Miranda-Valentin; Brener Jafet Melendes-Miranda, Petitioners, versus Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A202 146 938 BIA No. A202 146 939 Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Dennis and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Margarita Ancela Miranda-Valentin and her son, Brener Jafet Melendes-Miranda, are natives and citizens of Honduras who petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-60568 Document: 00515768430 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/05/2021 No. 19-60568 the denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and dismissing their appeal. The petitioners argue that the record contains substantial evidence of their well-founded fear of persecution based on their Garifuna race. They specifically point to the murder of their family members and Miranda- Valentin’s partner who were Garifuna. Miranda-Valentin’s testimony, according to the petitioners, established her fear of returning because the individuals who murdered her family members and partner may think she is trying to take land back that gangs and drug traffickers stole. The petitioners further argue that a gang’s efforts to recruit Melendes-Miranda under threat of death, based on his Garifuna status, further contributed to their fear of persecution. Regarding whether Miranda-Valentin could relocate in Honduras, the petitioners emphasize her testimony that “there’s no safe place over there anymore.” Finally, the petitioners argue that the hardship Garifuna in Honduras face is “critical” according to the U.S. State Department’s Human Rights Report. This court reviews only the BIA’s decision, “unless the IJ’s decision has some impact on” that decision, as it did here. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Factual findings are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard, and legal questions are reviewed de novo. Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 584 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007)). The BIA’s determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006) (first citing Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005); and then citing Zamora-Morel v. I.N.S., 905 F.2d 833, 838 (5th Cir. 1990)). Under that standard, the petitioner must show that “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach” a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA. Id. (citing Zhao, 404 F.3d at 306). Because the petitioners do not 2 Case: 19-60568 Document: 00515768430 Page: 3 Date Filed: …

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