Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0239-01.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

Efrain GONZALEZ-ROMAN, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
    No. 16-60075 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed June 6, 2017
    Robert Andrew Free, Law Office of R. Andrew Free, Nashville, TN, for Petitioner
    Ilissa Michelle Gould, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/OIL, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Efrain Gonzalez-Roman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He asserts that the BIA erred in determining that he was not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal based on his membership in a particular social group, i.e., deportees with Mexican ancestry but who were born in, or are associated with, the United States because they are not fluent in Spanish and are relatively unfamiliar with Mexican society. Gonzalez-Roman fails to brief any argument challenging the BIA’s determination that he was not entitled to relief under the CAT and, therefore, he has abandoned any related claim. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s conclusions regarding Gonzalez-Roman’s eligibility for relief, both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions are reviewable. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Under the substantial evidence standard, Gonzalez-Roman must demonstrate that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA. Id, at 537.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that Gonzalez-Roman did not establish that he was a member of a cog-' nizable particular social group. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2012); Wang, 569 F.3d at 537. Specifically, Gonzalez-Roman fails to define membership in the proposed group with sufficient exactness to limit its membership; the group is overbroad and fails to provide an adequate benchmark for determining group membership. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518-19, The circumstances of each member of the proposed group would manifest a variety of demographics, reasons for being in Mexico, duration of time living in the United States, and acculturation to Mexican society. The parameters of group membership, which are indeterminate and involve subjective judgments, do not permit members and non-members of the group to be discerned easily. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 521-22. Gonzalez-Roman fails to show that the record compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA regarding his eligibility for relief based on his membership in a particular social group. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 537.

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.