IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60597

Summary Calendar

MELVIN ALEXANDER-LORENZO,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A087 896 860

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Melvin Alexander-Lorenzo seeks review of the decision of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s 

(IJ) decision denying him asylum and withholding of removal. Alexander 

claims the IJ erred in: denying his petition because he belongs to a requisite 

particular social group, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A), comprised of 

recipients of death threats due to testifying against a member of organized 

 

* 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

August 24, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-60597 Document: 00513166292 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2015
No. 14-60597

2

crime; and not affording him an opportunity to explain how he belongs to that

group. He has waived his Convention Against Torture claim by failing to 

challenge the BIA’s denial of that claim. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 

445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008).

Factual findings made by the BIA are reviewed for substantial evidence, 

which requires the finding to be based on the evidence presented and that it be 

substantially reasonable. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–18 

(5th Cir. 2012). Under the substantial evidence standard, a finding fails only 

when the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 

339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).

Alexander’s contention that his actions as “a witness” during an incident 

at an immigration checkpoint qualify him as a member of a group of 

individuals who testified against organized crime is without merit. A 

particular social group is “defined by characteristics that provide a clear 

benchmark for determining who falls within the group”. Matter of W-G-R-, 

26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 214 (BIA 2014). Assuming arguendo persons who testify

against organized crime members may constitute a requisite particular social 

group, Alexander fails to establish his membership in that group. In short, he

has not shown the BIA’s determination that he failed to show membership in 

a particular social group, as required to succeed on a claim for asylum or 

withholding of removal, is substantially unreasonable. See Orellana-Monson, 

685 F.3d at 517–18.

Further, his claim that the IJ did not afford him an opportunity to 

present evidence concerning a particular social group also fails. Although 

Alexander faults the IJ, “[a]s a fact-finder in this case”, for “fail[ing] to 

question” him regarding the particular social group to which he belonged, the 

IJ did not have a duty to develop the facts necessary to prove Alexander’s claim. 

 Case: 14-60597 Document: 00513166292 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2015
No. 14-60597

3

See Lopez-Rodriguez v. I.N.S., No. 93-05242, 1994 WL 122108, at *6 (5th Cir. 

24 Mar. 1994) (unpublished). Moreover, Alexander’s counsel was given the 

opportunity to more fully develop the claims, but declined to do so.

DENIED.

 Case: 14-60597 Document: 00513166292 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/24/2015