United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60726

Summary Calendar

Javier Antonio Ramirez, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A209 432 480

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Javier Antonio Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions 

for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 24, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60726 Document: 00515993088 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2021
No. 20-60726

2

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

(CAT). His claims stem from several incidents involving gang members. 

This court reviews only the BIA’s decision, “unless the IJ’s decision 

has some impact on” that decision. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th 

Cir. 2009). Factual findings are reviewed under the substantial evidence 

standard, and legal questions are reviewed de novo, with deference accorded 

to the BIA’s reasonable interpretations of immigration statutes. Rui Yang 

v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 584 (5th Cir. 2011). 

There is no merit to Ramirez’s contention that the IJ and the BIA 

erred in determining that his articulated particular social group (PSG),

“Salvadoran men who fear violence and delinquency in their home country,” 

was not cognizable. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 521-22 (5th 

Cir. 2012). Because Ramirez articulated a precise, though unsuccessful PSG, 

the IJ was not obligated to seek clarification to ensure full development of the 

record. See Cantarero Lagos v. Barr, 924 F.3d 145, 151-52 (5th Cir. 2019). 

To the extent that Ramirez argues that the BIA erred by failing to seek 

clarification of his PSG, this issue is unexhausted. See Omari v. Holder, 

562 F.3d 314, 320-21 (5th Cir. 2009). And, in any event, the BIA does not err 

by failing to consider a PSG that was not presented to the IJ. See CantareroLagos, 924 F.3d at 151-53.

Given his failure to establish his membership in a cognizable PSG, 

which was the only protected ground he asserted in his asylum application, 

Ramirez cannot make a showing of nexus to a protected ground, and 

therefore his assertions of error as to the nexus requirement are unavailing. 

See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 522. His asylum claim therefore fails, and 

the failure of his asylum claim is also dispositive of his claim for withholding 

of removal. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 522; Tamara-Gomez

v. Gonzalez, 447 F.3d 343, 349-50 (5th Cir. 2006). In view of the foregoing,

Case: 20-60726 Document: 00515993088 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2021
No. 20-60726

3

he has not shown error in the BIA’s determination that he was not eligible for 

asylum or withholding of removal.

1

 

As to issues concerning the denial of protection under the CAT, as an 

initial matter, contrary to Ramirez’s argument, the IJ did not err in taking 

into consideration that Ramirez had not been tortured in the past. See 

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(i); Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 772 (5th

Cir. 2019). Ramirez places great reliance on a country report regarding El 

Salvador. Although the IJ did not specifically discuss the country report, the 

IJ indicated that she had considered “all evidence of record,” and, as for the

report itself, Ramirez has not pointed to any evidence in the report (or 

elsewhere) establishing that authorities in El Salvador would instigate, 

consent to, or acquiesce in his torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); 

Martinez-Lopez, 943 F.3d at 772. Even if Ramirez has identified some 

evidence in the report that “may weigh against” the agency’s determination 

that he was not entitled to CAT protection, the evidence “do[es] not compel

the opposite conclusion.” Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 494 (5th 

Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we will not overturn the agency’s determination 

that Ramirez is not entitled to CAT relief. See id.

In view of the foregoing, the petition for review is DENIED IN 

PART and DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jurisdiction.

1 Ramirez also asserts that the IJ and the BIA erred in their determinations as to the 

issues of past persecution and future persecution. “As a general rule courts and agencies 

are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the 

results they reach.” Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). 

Here, given that Ramirez failed to establish his membership in a cognizable PSG, we need 

not address the issues of past persecution and future persecution. See id.

Case: 20-60726 Document: 00515993088 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/24/2021