United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60311

Summary Calendar

Melvin Naun Guevara-Enriquez, 

Petitioner,

versus

William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A205 567 630

Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Melvin Naun Guevara-Enriquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 

seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

dismissing his appeal from the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of his 

application for asylum and withholding of removal. He challenges the BIA’s 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 4, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-60311 Document: 00515553120 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/04/2020
No. 19-60311

2

determination that he did not establish past persecution or a well-founded 

fear of future persecution based on a protected ground with respect to his 

claims for asylum and withholding of removal. Although the IJ also denied 

relief under the Convention Against Torture, Guevara-Enriquez did not 

appeal that to the BIA, nor does he raise it here.

As an initial matter, Guevara-Enriquez did not properly exhaust his 

contentions that the BIA did not review his claims with the appropriate level 

of rigor and scrutiny and failed to consider all the evidence and applicable 

caselaw. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 320 (5th Cir. 2009). Therefore, 

we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See id. at 320-21. 

With respect to the substance of his asylum and withholding claims, 

we review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and questions 

of law de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). 

We “may not overturn the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence 

compels a contrary conclusion.” Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 

(5th Cir. 2009). Guevara-Enriquez argues that he established past 

persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his 

membership in two particular social groups: “young Guatemalan men 

perceived by the M-18 gang to be” police informants and “former 

acquaintances of the M-18 gang perceived to be police informants.” We find 

no error in the conclusion that Guevara-Enriquez failed to establish 

persecution based on membership in a particular social group. HernandezDe La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 2016); Orellana-Monson v. 

Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518, 522 (5th Cir. 2012). Apart from the particular 

social group issue, the threats and harassment Guevara-Enriquez suffered do 

not rise to the level of persecution. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 188 

(5th Cir. 2004). Thus, he has not shown that the record compels the 

conclusion that he is entitled to asylum or, it follows, withholding of removal. 

See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).

 Case: 19-60311 Document: 00515553120 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/04/2020
No. 19-60311

3

IT IS ORDERED THAT the petition for review is DENIED in 

part and DISMISSED in part for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies.

 Case: 19-60311 Document: 00515553120 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/04/2020