Guevara-Fabian v. Garland, No. 20-60627 (5th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

EGF and GVG (Petitioners), each a native and citizen of El Salvador, petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals. That decision, in turn, affirmed an Immigration Judge’s order denying asylum to EGF and GVG, and denying withholding of their removal. GVG is EGF’s daughter and is a rider on her application.
 
The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review. The court explained that the record does not compel any contrary finding. Instead, there is substantial evidence that EGF was the target of an extortion scheme, that she was safe so long as she paid, and that the extortionists targeted her because she owned a profitable business. Nor does the record compel a finding that EGF has a well-founded fear of future persecution. EGF has failed to establish that she is eligible for asylum, she has “also fail[ed] to establish eligibility for withholding of removal.”

Download PDF
Case: 20-60627 Document: 00516521066 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 20-60627 Summary Calendar FILED October 25, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Emma Yesenia Guevara-Fabian; Genesis Rebeca VillaltaGuevara, Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A209 885 857 Agency No. A209 885 858 Before Southwick, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: Emma Yesenia Guevara-Fabian and Genesis Rebeca Villalta-Guevara (Genesis), each a native and citizen of El Salvador, petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals. That decision, in turn, affirmed an Immigration Judge’s order denying asylum to Guevara-Fabian and Genesis, and denying withholding of their removal. Genesis is GuevaraFabian’s daughter and is a rider on her application. Case: 20-60627 Document: 00516521066 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 No. 20-60627 The Board affirmed without an opinion, so the Immigration Judge’s order is “the final agency determination.” Miresles-Zuniga v. Holder, 743 F.3d 110, 112 n.2 (5th Cir. 2014). The Immigration Judge’s factual findings are conclusive “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Guevara-Fabian seeks asylum and withholding of removal based on membership in a proposed particular social group that she describes as “family member of Jose Amadeo Fabian.” Jose Amadeo Fabian is GuevaraFabian’s uncle. He was attacked and beaten after he refused to carry contraband into the prison where he worked. The Immigration Judge found that no factual nexus exists between Guevara-Fabian’s familial relationship to her uncle (even if that family is a particular social group) and the harm that Guevara-Fabian experienced (even if that harm is persecution). The record does not compel any contrary finding. Instead, there is substantial evidence that Guevara-Fabian was the target of an extortion scheme, that she was safe so long as she paid, and that the extortionists targeted her because she owned a profitable business—not because she was a family member of Jose Amadeo Fabian. Nor does the record compel a finding that Guevara-Fabian has a wellfounded fear of future persecution. Her uncle has himself avoided further attacks, Guevara-Fabian’s family members that remain in El Salvador have not been threatened or harmed, and Guevara-Fabian no longer owns the business that made her an extortion target to begin with. Because Guevara-Fabian has failed to establish that she is eligible for asylum, she has “also fail[ed] to establish eligibility for withholding of removal.” Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 271 (5th Cir. 2021). The petition for review is DENIED. 2
Primary Holding

The Fifth Circuit denied the Petitioners' petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court held that because Petitioners have failed to establish that she is eligible for asylum, she has also failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal.


Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.