IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60264

Summary Calendar

SELVIN ANTONIO FLORES CABRERA,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A206 847 406

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Selvin Antonio Flores Cabrera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 

petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of

his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 

Convention Against Torture (CAT). He claimed that gang members engaged 

in extortion against him and his brothers and threatened to harm or kill them 

 

* 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

April 27, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60264 Document: 00513483148 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2016
No. 15-60264

2

if they stopped making payments and that police officers repeatedly demanded 

bribes from him for failing to carry identification documents.

First, Flores Cabrera argues that the IJ erred in relying on an Eighth 

Circuit decision, Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2005). Menjivar, 

however, is consistent with our precedent. See Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 

F.3d 109, 113 (5th Cir. 2006).

Next, Flores Cabrera contends that the IJ’s rate of denying asylum 

claims far exceeds the national average and his rate of denying bond is also 

extremely high. There is no showing that the IJ was biased or that any alleged 

bias affected the outcome of the proceedings. See Bouchikhi v. Holder, 676 F.3d 

173, 180 (5th Cir. 2012); Ogunfuye v. Holder, 610 F.3d 303, 306-07 (5th Cir. 

2010). Further, the BIA did not err in holding that the IJ’s rate of denying 

bond was not at issue because custody matters are handled in separate 

proceedings.

Flores Cabrera argues that the IJ erred in denying a continuance. 

Because Flores Cabrera raised this argument in his notice of appeal but did 

not address it in his subsequently filed brief to the BIA, he waived it. See 

Claudio v. Holder, 601 F.3d 316, 318 (5th Cir. 2010). We do not have 

jurisdiction to review this claim because it is not exhausted. See Dale v. 

Holder, 610 F.3d 294, 298-301 (5th Cir. 2010). 

According to Flores Cabrera, the IJ violated his due process rights by 

giving his counsel no choice but to withdraw and, as a result, requiring him to 

proceed without counsel. Flores Cabrera stated that he wished to proceed

pro se, and he has not demonstrated that the lack of counsel prejudiced him or 

caused the removal hearing to be fundamentally unfair. See Ogbemudia v. 

INS, 988 F.2d 595, 598 (5th Cir. 1993); Prichard-Ciriza v. INS, 978 F.2d 219, 

222 (5th Cir. 1992).

 Case: 15-60264 Document: 00513483148 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2016
No. 15-60264

3

Further, Flores Cabrera contends that the IJ and BIA erred in denying 

his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA did not err 

in holding that Flores Cabrera did not demonstrate that he had a well-founded 

fear of persecution on account of his membership in a particular social group 

or any other protected ground. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 

518 (5th Cir. 2012); Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885, 890 (5th Cir. 2014). 

Finally, Flores Cabrera contends that the BIA erred in denying relief 

under the CAT. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision that he did 

not show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with 

the acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Tamara-Gomez v. 

Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 350-51 (5th Cir. 2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

 Case: 15-60264 Document: 00513483148 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/27/2016