United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60532

Summary Calendar

Francisco Espinoza-Villasenor, also known as Francisco M. 

Espinosa, 

Petitioner,

versus

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

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A206 239 029

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Francisco Espinoza-Villasenor, a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA): dismissing 

his appeal from the denial of his application for withholding of removal and 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

January 4, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60532 Document: 00515691791 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2021
No. 19-60532

2

relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT); and denying his request 

to remand the proceeding to consider his eligibility for cancellation of 

removal. Because he presents claims pertaining only to withholding, and 

cancellation, of removal, he has abandoned any challenge to the BIA’s 

determination that he was not eligible for protection under the CAT. See 

Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). 

In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s decision, to the extent 

it influenced the BIA), questions of law are reviewed de novo; factual findings,

for substantial evidence, Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–18 (5th 

Cir. 2012); and denial of the motion to remand, for abuse of discretion, Milat 

v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 365 (5th Cir. 2014). 

To be eligible for withholding of removal, an applicant “must

demonstrate a clear probability of persecution upon return”. MunozGranados, 958 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 

F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004)). A clear probability of persecution “means

that it is more likely than not that the applicant’s life or freedom would be 

threatened by persecution on account of either his race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”. Roy, 389 F.3d 

at 138 (emphasis added). Although Espinoza asserts he was threatened by 

members of his wife’s family based on his membership in the EspinozaVillasenor family, his testimony reflects that he was threatened because his 

wife’s family did not approve of his relationship with his wife (who died after 

his illegal entry in the United States). In fact, he acknowledged that his wife’s 

family’s issue with him had nothing to do with his family; it was related to 

the age difference between him and his wife and because he left her. 

Moreover, he testified that he was the only one in his family who had been 

threatened by his wife’s family. “Persecution motivated by a personal 

vendetta or desire for revenge is not persecution ‘on account of’ a protected 

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

Case: 19-60532 Document: 00515691791 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2021
No. 19-60532

3

(citations omitted). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s 

determination that Espinoza is not entitled to withholding of removal. 

Regarding Espinoza’s motion to remand to consider his eligibility for 

cancellation of removal, such cancellation is available to applicantswho: have 

been continuously present in the United States for ten or more years prior to 

filing an application; can establish good moral character during that time; 

have no disqualifying convictions; and can establish that removal would 

result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the applicant’s 

spouse, parent, or child. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Pursuant to the stop-time

rule, continuous physical presence is deemed to end when an applicant is 

served a notice to appear (NTA). 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(A). On the other 

hand, in Pereira v. Sessions, the Supreme Court held a NTA that fails to 

inform a noncitizen of when and where to appear is invalid and does not 

trigger the stop-time rule. 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2110 (2018). 

Espinoza entered the United States in 2007 without being admitted or 

paroled. He was served a NTA in 2014, but it did not designate a specific 

time when he was required to appear. On 9 March 2016, Espinoza was served 

with a notice of hearing (NOH), stating a hearing had been scheduled for 25 

March 2016. He contends he has been continuously present in the United 

States for more than ten years, because neither the NTA nor subsequent 

service of the NOH triggersthe stop-time rule. This court has held, however,

that a NTA is cured, and the stop-time rule triggered, when an applicant 

receives all the required information, even if the information is provided in 

more than one document. Yanez-Pena v. Barr, 952 F.3d 239, 245 (5th Cir. 

2020), petition for cert. filed (Apr. 8, 2020) (No. 19-1208). Because service of 

the NOH containing the information missing from the NTA was done within 

ten years of Espinoza’s entry to the United States, he lacks the requisite ten 

years of continuous presence to be eligible for cancellation of removal. 

Case: 19-60532 Document: 00515691791 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/04/2021
No. 19-60532

4

Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to 

remand. 

DENIED.

Case: 19-60532 Document: 00515691791 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/04/2021