Filed: Mar. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 17-60544 Document: 00514874569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 17-60544 March 15, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk FRANCISCA BARRIENTOS TELON, Petitioner v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent _ Consolidated With 17-60847 FRANCISCA BARRIENTOS TELON, also known as Marta Santos Gutierrez, Petitioner v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Pet
Summary: Case: 17-60544 Document: 00514874569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 17-60544 March 15, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk FRANCISCA BARRIENTOS TELON, Petitioner v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent _ Consolidated With 17-60847 FRANCISCA BARRIENTOS TELON, also known as Marta Santos Gutierrez, Petitioner v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Peti..
More
Case: 17-60544 Document: 00514874569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 17-60544 March 15, 2019
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
FRANCISCA BARRIENTOS TELON,
Petitioner
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
______________________
Consolidated With 17-60847
FRANCISCA BARRIENTOS TELON, also known as Marta Santos Gutierrez,
Petitioner
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A097 896 817
Case: 17-60544 Document: 00514874569 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2019
No. 17-60544
c/w No. 17-60847
Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Petitioner Francisca Barrientos Telon has petitioned for review of
decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) (1) denying and
dismissing her application for withholding of removal alleging past persecution
and a fear of future persecution based on membership in a particular social
group and requesting relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and
(2) and denying her motion for reconsideration. Barrientos Telon asserts that
she fled to the United States because of extortionate gang violence and that
she has been persecuted because of her efforts to investigate the murder of her
son by gang members and because of her family ties. She fears that she will
be tortured on returning to Guatemala.
The BIA’s decision with respect to an alien’s eligibility for withholding of
removal is a fact finding reviewed for substantial evidence. Chen v. Gonzales,
470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under the substantial evidence standard,
the BIA’s determination will be upheld “unless the evidence is so compelling
that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find otherwise.” Tesfamichael v.
Gonzales,
469 F.3d 109, 113 (5th Cir. 2006).
For CAT relief, an alien must prove that it is more likely than not that
she will be tortured if she is removed to the proposed country of removal, but
she is not required to show that the torture will be on account of a protected
ground. Efe v. Ashcroft,
293 F.3d 899, 906-07 (5th Cir. 2002); see also
Chen,
470 F.3d at 1138-39; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).
* 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: 17-60544 Document: 00514874569 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/15/2019
No. 17-60544
c/w No. 17-60847
The denial by the BIA of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed under
a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Le v. Lynch,
819 F.3d 98,
104 (5th Cir. 2016); Zhao v. Gonzales,
404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005). Under
that standard, we will not disturb the BIA’s decision, even if we determine that
the BIA decision is “in error, so long as it is not capricious, racially invidious,
utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so aberrational that it
is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.”
Osuchukwu v. INS,
744 F.2d 1136, 1142 (5th Cir. 1984).
The BIA’s determinations in denying withholding of removal that (1)
Barrientos Telon’s past persecutors were centrally motivated only by
criminality, extortion, and retribution and not on account of Barrientos Telon’s
membership in a particular social group, and (2) she has not shown a
reasonable fear of future persecution are supported by substantial evidence.
See
Tesfamichael, 469 F.3d at 113; see also Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch,
794 F.3d
485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015).
Contrary to Barrientos Telon’s contentions, the BIA did not apply
incorrect standards in reviewing the Immigration Judge’s rejection of her CAT
claim. The BIA’s denial of Barrientos Telon’s request for protection under the
CAT is supported by substantial evidence. See
Chen, 470 F.3d at 1139, 1142-
43; see also Garcia v. Holder,
756 F.3d 885, 892 (5th Cir. 2014). Barrientos
Telon has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion in denying her motion
for reconsideration. See
Le, 819 F.3d at 104.
The petitions for review are DENIED.
3