# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 
No. 19
- 60004 Summary Calendar
**Miguel Angel Romero**
**- Oliva; Kevin Geovanny Romero** 
**** **Melendez,** Petitioners **,** versus **William P. Barr, U. S. Attorney General,** Respondent **.** Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 886 745 BIA No. A208 886 746 Before **Davis, Stewart,** and **Dennis,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** * Miguel Angel Romero
- Oliva and his teenage son, Kevin Geovanny Romero
- Melendez, are natives and citizens of Honduras who entered the

* Pursuant to **5 TH**  **C IR**  **cuit Rule** 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5 TH**  **C IRCUIT**  **R ULE**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 9, 2020 Lyle W. C ayce Clerk Case: 19-60004 Document: 00515557434 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2020No. 19
- 60004

2 United States at or near Brownsville, Texas, on or about March 13, 2016, without being admitted or paroled. Romero
- Oliva and Romero
- Melendez ha ve filed a petition for review of the order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Romero
- Oliva sought asylum and withholding of removal based on membership in a particular social group (PSG), which he identified as “Honduran men who fear violence and delinquency in their home country.” He listed Romero
- Melendez as a derivative benefici ary of his asylum application. We have authority to review only the order of the BIA unless the underlying decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) influenced the BIA’s decision . See Wang v. Holder , 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). The BIA’s legal conc lusions are reviewed de novo. Orellana
- Monson v. Holder , 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). Th is court reviews the BIA’s findings for substantial evidence, and it will not disturb such findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. at 5 17 - 18. Romero
- Oliva argues that his testimony allowed for the reasonable inference that his proposed PSG also included his family’s status as landowners and his sibling connection as the basis for or a component of a cognizable PSG and that the IJ erred in failing to address that PSG. He asserts that the IJ’s failure deprived him of a full and fair hearing and that the BIA should have ordered a remand. He further argues that the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s finding that he did not suffer any persecut ion because he experienced threats that were highly imminent and menacing in nature. An asylum applicant has the burden to establish his entitlement to relief by “clearly indicat[ing] on the record before the [IJ] . . . . the exact delineation of any par ticular social group(s) to which she claims to belong.” Case: 19-60004 Document: 00515557434 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2020No. 19
- 60004

3 Matter of W
- Y
- C
- & H
- O
- B
- , 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 191 (BIA 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). During proceedings before the IJ, Romero
- Oliva expressly abandoned his proposed PSG b ased on his family’s status as landowners. Moreover, his testimony does not suffice to raise his sibling connection as a component of a cognizable PSG, given that he was represented by counsel in his immigration proceedings and counsel was given the oppor tunity to articulate the parameters of the PSG that Romero
- Oliva was proposing. See Matter of W
- Y
- C
- & H
- O
- B
- , 27 I. & N. Dec. at 191
- 93. Accordingly, he fails to demonstrate that the BIA erred in declining to consider a different PSG for the first time on appeal from the IJ. See Cantarero
- Lagos v. Barr , 924 F.3d 145, 150
- 51 (5th Cir. 2019). Romero
- Oliva’s counseled brief presents no argument that the purported persecution that he experienced and feared was based on, or would be based on, membership in h is original PSG: Honduran men who fear violence and delinquency in their home country, which the BIA rejected as non - cognizable . Romero
- Oliva has therefore waived review of the issue. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Beasley v . McCotter , 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). We need not consider Romero

- Oliva’s other argument that the threats he received from criminal gangs rose to the level of persecution because he has failed to identify a cognizable PSG. Because Romero
- Oliva fa ils to show that he was or would be persecuted based on a protected ground, he is ineligible for asylum. See Cantarero
- Lagos , 924 F.3d at 150. As such, the BIA did not err. See id. ; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Romero

- Oliva’s failure to establish his eli gibility for asylum necessarily defeats his claim to withholding of removal. See Majd v. Gonzales , 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006). The petition for review is **DENIED** . Case: 19-60004 Document: 00515557434 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/09/2020