IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-60263

Summary Calendar

HERBERT ALBARENGA-CHAVEZ, also known as Herbert Patrocinio ChavezAlvarenga,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A099 612 264

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Herbert Albarenga-Chavez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his

appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying his request for

withholding of removal.

For the first time, Albarenga challenges: (1) the IJ’s finding his proffered

social group of “migrant workers” was not cognizable; and (2) the IJ’s implicit

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 12, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-60263 Document: 00511348617 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2011
No. 10-60263

finding he was not entitled to withholding of removal based on Indian descent.

Because Albarenga failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for these

claims by raising them before the BIA, our court lacks jurisdiction to consider

them. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir.

2001).

Albarenga also contends he is entitled to withholding of removal because

of past, and likelihood of future, persecution on account of his membership in a

particular social group: individuals who refuse to join gangs in El Salvador.

When the BIA affirms the IJ’s denial, based in part on the IJ’s opinion, as it did

in this case, our court reviews both decisions. See, e.g., Zhu v. Gonzales, 493

F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). We review the IJ’s and BIA’s determinations

Albarenga is not eligible for withholding of removal under the substantial

evidence standard. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). That

standard “requires only that the BIA’s decisions be supported by record evidence

and be substantially reasonable”. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir.

2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, an alien must show “‘it

is more likely than not’ that his life or freedom would be threatened by

persecution on account of one of the five categories mentioned under asylum”.

Efe, 293 F.3d at 906 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)). The protected categories

are “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or

political opinion”. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th

Cir. 1994). That Albarenga has not shown membership in a particular social

group is supported by the record and is substantially reasonable. See Shaikh,

588 F.3d at 863. Because he has not demonstrated a protected ground was a

central reason for the alleged persecution, Albarenga has not demonstrated the

IJ and BIA erred in denying withholding of removal.

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION IN PART; DENIED IN

PART.

2

Case: 10-60263 Document: 00511348617 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2011