Case ID: f-appx_685/html/0301-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Juan Ramon CARCAMO-CRUZ, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent
    No. 15-60850 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed April 11, 2017
    Gino Mario Mesa, Esq,, Law Office of Gino M. Mesa, Houston, TX, for Petitioner
    Justin Robert Markel, Trial Attorney, Virginia M. Lum, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges,
   PER CURIAM:

Juan Ramon Carcamo-Cruz petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for statutory withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). He does not brief any challenge to the denial of withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, this issue is waived. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (issues not briefed are considered abandoned).

In his petition, Carcamo-Cruz contends that he is eligible for statutory withholding based on his membership in a particular social group (PSG), to wit, individuals who were part of a crowd of persons being robbed but were singled out, shot, and subsequently threatened by the MS-18 gang. He does not point to any evidence in the record or to any relevant legal authority that shows that his proposed PSG has a common immutable characteristic, particularity, or social distinction within the Salvadoran community. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517-22 (5th Cir. 2012), as modified by Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786-87 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2016); see Bouchikhi v. Holder, 676 F.3d 173, 181 (5th Cir. 2012).

The petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.