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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60444

Summary Calendar

HECTOR ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ,

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. A076 833 032

Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hector Roberto Rodriguez, a native of Guatelmala, has filed a petition for

review from the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his request

for withholding of removal. He argues that the BIA erred when it determined

that the violence he experienced at the hands of members of a Guatemalan gang

did not warrant relief from removal.

Rodriguez does not challenge the determination by the immigration judge

(IJ) and the BIA that he was not seeking relief under the Convention Against

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 25, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-60444 Document: 00511120532 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2010
No. 09-60444

2

Torture, nor does he challenge the denial of voluntary departure. He has

therefore abandoned any challenge to these rulings. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,

324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Also, although he conclusionally

asserts that he seeks asylum, Rodriguez does not address the IJ’s determination

that he is ineligible for asylum because he did not file a timely asylum

application. He has therefore abandoned this issue. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d

at 748. In any event, as more than a year elapsed between Rodriguez’s arrival

in the United States and the date that he filed his asylum application, and he

does not argue that there are extraordinary circumstances that prevented his

filing, the record supports the determination that he is not entitled to asylum.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B).

The IJ and the BIA determined that regardless of whether the harm that

Rodriguez sustained at the hands of the gang was severe enough to qualify as

persecution, Rodriguez’s claim for withholding of removal failed because he did

not establish that the persecution was motivated by his membership in one of

the five protected categories. An applicant for withholding of removal has the

burden of showing that it is “more likely than not” that his life or freedom would

be threatened by persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 C.F.R.

§ 208.16(b); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir.

2002). Although Rodriguez argues that he is member of a particular social

group, he has failed to establish that he is a “member of a group of persons that

share a common immutable characteristic that they either cannot change or

should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual

identities or consciences.” See Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 414-15 (5th

Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the petition for

review is DENIED.

Case: 09-60444 Document: 00511120532 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2010