IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60370

Summary Calendar

JOSE GUADALUPE MAGDALENO-ALCALAN,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A075 891 320

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Guadalupe Magdaleno-Alcalan (Magdaleno), a native and citizen of 

Mexico, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s 

(BIA’s) decision dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) removal 

order. The IJ denied Magdaleno’s claims for the withholding of removal under 

the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and relief under the Convention 

Against Torture (CAT). We review both the decision of the BIA and that of the 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 24, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60370 Document: 00513518516 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2016
No. 15-60370

2

IJ. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Legal conclusions 

are reviewed de novo, and findings of fact are reviewed for substantial 

evidence. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2012). 

Magdaleno first argues that the IJ erred in rejecting his claims of 

membership in a particular social group of “natives who have become 

strangers.” We find merit in the Respondent’s contention that Magdaleno did 

not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to this claim because he 

failed to raise it before the BIA. See Dale v. Holder, 610 F.3d 294, 298-301 (5th 

Cir. 2010). However, even if this court were to address his argument, 

Magdaleno would not be entitled to relief because has not shown that he will 

be singled out for persecution on account of his membership in his perceived 

social group. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518; see also Faddoul v. INS, 

37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994) (concluding that petitioner failed to show the 

“particularized connection” between his fear of harm and his nationality).

Magdaleno also maintains that he will be persecuted, at least in part, on 

account of his family membership. As noted by the BIA, Magdaleno failed to 

establish that the violence against his family members was based on anything 

more than random criminality. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 191-92 

(5th Cir. 2004). Magdaleno’s newfound assertions of “payback” and retaliation 

are not founded in the record and are entirely speculative. Accordingly, he has 

failed to put forth compelling evidence establishing that the BIA erred in 

rejecting his claim for withholding of removal. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d 

at 518.

Magdaleno’s claim that neither the IJ nor the BIA properly addressed 

his claims under the CAT are without merit. Both the IJ and the BIA cited the 

“more likely than not” standard applicable to Magdaleno’s claim under the 

CAT, and both determined that Magdaleno failed to put forth evidence which 

 Case: 15-60370 Document: 00513518516 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2016
No. 15-60370

3

met that standard. See Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885, 891 (5th Cir. 2014). 

Magdaleno’s unsupported contentions are insufficient to meet the standard 

required to obtain relief under the CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).

PETITION DENIED.

 Case: 15-60370 Document: 00513518516 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2016