United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60670

Summary Calendar

Juan Carlos Ayala-Ramos, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A200 867 654

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Juan Carlos Ayala-Ramos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions 

for review of an immigration judge’s decision affirming an asylum officer’s

determination that he lacked a reasonable fear of persecution. Ayala-Ramos

also asserts that his due process rights were violated and that, despite being 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

December 20, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60670 Document: 00516137396 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2021
No. 20-60670

2

previously ordered removed, he is eligible for asylum. Because he does not 

challenge the determination that he failed to demonstrate that he was more 

likely than not to be tortured upon his return to El Salvador, that claim has 

been abandoned. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 

2008).

To establish a reasonable fear of persecution, an alien must 

“establish[] a reasonable possibility that he or she would be persecuted on 

account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 

social group or political opinion.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(c).1

 To demonstrate 

persecution, the applicant must establish that one of the five statutorily 

protected grounds was “at least one central reason” for the harm that he 

experienced. Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 2019)

(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)). Although Ayala-Ramos argues that he 

was persecuted on account of a friend’s political activity and because he 

investigated a friend’s murder by MS-13, he has failed to articulate any actual 

or imputed political opinion. Because the record does not compel the 

conclusion that he was targeted on account of a protected basis, substantial 

evidence supports the determination that he failed to establish a reasonable 

fear of persecution.

Ayala-Ramos also argues that his due process rights were violated. To 

prevail on a due process claim, “an alien must make an initial showing of 

substantial prejudice by making ‘a prima facie showing that the alleged 

violation affected the outcome of the proceeding.’” Arteaga-Ramirez v. Barr, 

1 “Although the Government argues that this court should apply a ‘facially 

legitimate and bona fide reason’ standard rather than the substantial evidence standard in 

evaluating an immigration judge’s reasonable fear determination, it is not necessary to 

determine the appropriate standard of review at this time because [Ayala-Ramos’s] claim 

fails even under the less deferential substantial evidence test.” Carbajal-Betanco v. Barr, 

830 F. App’x 452, 453 n.1 (5th Cir. 2020). 

Case: 20-60670 Document: 00516137396 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2021
No. 20-60670

3

954 F.3d 812, 813 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Okpala v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 965, 

971 (5th Cir. 2018)). While he claims that the immigration judge did not 

allow him adequate time to submit evidence and prevented him from 

submitting evidence, he is unable to demonstrate that he was actually 

prejudiced because he has failed to indicate how the additional evidence he 

says he would have presented could lead to a different result. See ArteagaRamirez, 954 F.3d at 813. Moreover, the record reflects that he was provided 

an opportunity to testify in support of his claim and that the immigration 

judge accepted his evidence, treated his testimony as credible, and 

considered the raised issues before affirming the decision of the asylum 

officer. Because the record reflects that Ayala-Ramos received a notice of his 

charges, a hearing, and a fair opportunity to be heard, he failed to 

demonstrate that his due process rights were violated. See Okpala, 908 F.3d 

at 971.

Finally, despite his assertions to the contrary, Ayala-Ramos is 

ineligible for asylum because he is subject to the reinstatement of a previous 

order of removal. See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 491 (5th Cir. 

2015).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 20-60670 Document: 00516137396 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/20/2021