IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60498

Summary Calendar

ANGEL A. HEREDIA MONS,

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A215 734 322

Before BARKSDALE, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Angel A. Heredia Mons, a native and citizen of Cuba, seeks review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision upholding the immigration 

judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. 

Heredia asserts the IJ and BIA erred by: failing to conduct a cumulativeeffects analysis; finding he had not suffered past persecution on account of his 

political opinion; and finding he did not have an objectively reasonable fear of 

* 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

June 11, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-60498 Document: 00515449889 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2020
No. 19-60498

2

future persecution. (Heredia does not contend the BIA erred in rejecting his 

due-process claim; any such challenge is therefore abandoned. See Soadjede v. 

Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (citation omitted).)

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

influenced the BIA), our court reviews legal conclusions de novo and factual 

findings for substantial evidence. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 

517–18 (5th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). The determination an alien is 

ineligible for asylum is a factual finding. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 

1134 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 

On substantial-evidence review, such a factual finding will not be 

disturbed “unless the court decides not only that the evidence supports a 

contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it”. Orellana-Monson, 

685 F.3d at 518 (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). In that regard, “petitioner has the burden of showing that the 

evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary 

conclusion”. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

“Asylum is discretionary and may be granted to an alien who is unable 

or unwilling to return to his home country because of persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Zhang v. 

Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the requisite 

past persecution or objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. OrellanaMonson, 685 F.3d at 518 (citations omitted). 

In that regard, our court has identified persecution as “the infliction of 

suffering or harm, under government sanction, upon persons who differ in a 

way regarded as offensive[,] . . . in a manner condemned by civilized 

 Case: 19-60498 Document: 00515449889 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2020
No. 19-60498

3

governments”. Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 583–84 (5th Cir. 1996) 

(alteration and citation omitted). “The harm or suffering need not be physical, 

but may take other forms, such as the deliberate imposition of severe economic 

disadvantage or the deprivation of liberty, food, housing, employment or other 

essentials of life.” Id. (citation omitted).

Regarding Heredia’s cumulative-effects-analysis claim, he did not raise 

this contention with the BIA in his appeal brief, a motion to reconsider, or 

otherwise. Accordingly, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for 

this claim, and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Omari v. Holder, 562 

F.3d 314, 319–21 (5th Cir. 2009).

Additionally, Heredia fails to establish the evidence compels concluding 

he suffered past persecution or has an objectively reasonable fear of future 

persecution. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518 (citation omitted). And,

“[b]ecause the level of proof required to establish eligibility for withholding of 

removal is higher than that required for asylum, [Heredia’s] failure to establish 

eligibility for asylum is dispositive of [his] claim[] for withholding of removal”. 

Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

 Case: 19-60498 Document: 00515449889 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/11/2020