United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60004

Summary Calendar

Miguel Angel Romero-Oliva; Kevin Geovanny RomeroMelendez, 

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 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

September 9, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60004 Document: 00515557434 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2020
No. 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

have 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 beneficiary 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 conclusions are reviewed de novo. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 

511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). This 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 517-18. 

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 persecution 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 particular social group(s) to which she claims to belong.” 

Case: 19-60004 Document: 00515557434 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2020
No. 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 based 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 opportunity 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 his 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 fails 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 eligibility 

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