IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60164

Summary Calendar

LUIS ANTONIO AMARO-GRIMALDO,

Petitioner

v.

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A201 143 490

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luis Antonio Amaro-Grimaldo, who was ordered removed to his native 

country of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an order by an immigration judge (IJ) 

denying his application for withholding of removal. He argues that his 

application should have been granted because, as a member of a particular 

social group, namely, family members of gang members who are subject to 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 18, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60164 Document: 00514800962 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2019
18-60164

2

gang retribution, he was threatened in Mexico and will more likely than not 

face threats if removed to Mexico. The sole evidence of a threat he presented 

was a threat against his father because one of Amaro-Grimaldo’s brothers stole 

money but did not turn it over to a gang or a cartel as expected.

The BIA reasoned, as the IJ had, that even if a particular social group 

such as Amaro-Grimaldo claimed did in fact exist, there was no evidence that 

his family relationship was a central reason for the threat he described or any 

possible future threat. That is, the BIA concluded that Amaro-Grimaldo failed 

to carry his burden of establishing a nexus between his claimed social group 

and his claimed fear. See Revencu v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 

2018); Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 349 (5th Cir. 2006). In the 

BIA’s view, Amaro-Grimaldo failed to show that the harm he claimed to fear 

was not the result of criminal violence conducted solely for pecuniary gain. Our 

review of the administrative finding that Amaro-Grimaldo is not eligible for 

withholding of removal is under the substantial evidence standard, which 

means that we may not grant the petition for review unless we determine that 

the evidence not only supports, but compels, a contrary conclusion. See Chen 

v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).

An alien may not be removed to a country in which his “life or freedom 

would be threatened . . . because of [his] race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1231(b)(3)(A); see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3). If past persecution based on such a 

nexus is demonstrated, future persecution on the same basis “shall be 

presumed,” but the presumption may be rebutted. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(i). 

Absent past persecution, the alien may be granted withholding of removal if 

he establishes “that it is more likely than not that” he would be persecuted 

based on a statutorily protected ground, except in circumstances not pertinent 

 Case: 18-60164 Document: 00514800962 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2019
18-60164

3

to the instant case. § 208.16(b)(2); see Chen, 470 F.3d at 1138; see also Revencu, 

895 F.3d at 402.

No logical reason exists “to suppose that those who” threatened AmaroGrimaldo’s father to reap the benefit of another son’s criminal activity “also 

[did] so out of hatred for a family.” Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 493 

(5th Cir. 2015); see Revencu, 895 F.3d at 403; Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 

579, 583 (5th Cir. 1996). In that regard, the record does not reveal that any 

harm has been visited on members of Amaro-Grimaldo’s family who have 

remained in Mexico.

Amaro-Grimaldo fails to “set forth evidence so compelling that no 

reasonable factfinder could fail to find the nexus requirement fulfilled.” 

Revencu, 895 F.3d at 404 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see 

Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2012); Chen, 470 

F.3d at 1134, 1138. And he has abandoned, by failing to brief it, any claim 

under the Convention Against Torture. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 

445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). Consequently, the petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 18-60164 Document: 00514800962 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/18/2019