Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0254-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Guadalupe ORTIZ-SANDOVAL, Petitioner v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
    No. 15-60395 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 10/06/2016
    Zulu Abdullah Ali, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner.
    Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, Esq., Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent,
    Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:

Guadalupe Ortiz-Sandoval .petitions this court to review the administrative reinstatement of her prior order of removal. She challenges the determination by the immigration judge under 8 C.F.R. § 208.31 that she lacked a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico. According to Ortiz-Sandoval, she showed under § 208.31(c) that she belonged to a particular social group comprised of her family members. She did not exhaust this claim administratively, however, and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786 (5th Cir. 2016).

Additionally, because the underlying order of removal rests on Ortiz-Sandoval’s prior conviction for an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C, § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), we lack jurisdiction to consider her challenge to the finding that she failed to show a link between the Zetas and Mexican public officials as required to show torture under 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). See § 1252(a)(2)(C); Hernandez-De La Cruz, 819 F.3d at 786-87. We need not reach her challenge to the alternate determination that a fear of being killed is not a fear of torture.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.