Case ID: f-appx_407/html/0822-01.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

Jorge BAQUEDANO-BERRIOS, also known as Jorge Rodolfo Baquedano, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-60214
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
    Gino Mario Mesa, Esq., Law Office of Gino M. Mesa, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Rosanne M. Perry, Trial Attorney, Tangerlia Cox, Don George Scroggin, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before REAVLEY, DENNIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jorge Baquedano-Berrios (Baquedano), a native and citizen of Honduras, has filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying his application for withholding of removal. Baquedano argues that he is eligible for withholding of removal because he experienced past persecution and has a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his religion, membership in a particular social group, and political opinion.

Baquedano did not argue in his appeal to the BIA that he was targeted based on his religion, political opinion, and membership in a particular economic and social class. Therefore, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to these issues, and we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir.2001).

Even assuming that Baquedano exhausted these claims and demonstrated that he was targeted based on his religion, political opinion, or membership in a particular economic and social class, the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s finding that Baquedano did not show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir.2007). For the forgoing reasons, 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.