Summary
Ever Flores v. William Barr, 5th Cir. 2019 (unpublished) – Petition for review of BIA order denying asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that Flores failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his family membership, as there was no evidence of physical harm, the police responded and jailed the alleged persecutor, and the government was willing and able to control the harm. The court also declined to address a Convention Against Torture claim raised for the first time before the BIA. Key topics: asylum nexus, family-based social group, persecution standard, government control, substantial evidence review.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Flores established eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal based on a fear of persecution due to his family membership.
- Whether the evidence compels a finding of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.
Holdings
- Flores failed to demonstrate that the evidence compels the conclusion that he was persecuted in the past or that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution, and substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that he is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal.
Key quotations
“Flores has failed to demonstrate that the evidence compels the conclusion that he was persecuted in the past.” (at 2)
“Flores has not satisfied his burden of showing that the record compels the conclusion that he is eligible for asylum.” (at 3)
Factual background
Flores, a native and citizen of Honduras, feared persecution due to his family membership. His father was threatened once by his aunt's domestic partner over an inheritance. No family member was physically harmed, police responded to the threat, issued a restraining order, and jailed the alleged persecutor. Flores had no personal contact with the alleged persecutor.
Procedural history
Flores seeks review of a BIA order dismissing his appeal and affirming the IJ's order of removal and denial of asylum and withholding of removal.