IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60823

Summary Calendar

JUAN GARCIA SALAS,

Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A208 142 287

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Garcia Salas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court for 

review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing 

his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his requests for 

change of venue, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 

Convention Against Torture (CAT). Regarding the change of venue, the IJ 

determined that there was no good cause to grant the motion. The BIA found 

 

* 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

November 14, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60823 Document: 00514236754 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2017
No. 16-60823

2

that there was no prejudice to Garcia Salas resulting from the denial of that

motion. In rejecting his claims on the merits, the BIA and IJ both found (1) 

that Garcia Salas did not establish that he was persecuted on account of his 

membership in a social group and (2) that there was no evidence he would be 

tortured with the acquiescence of a Mexican government official if returned to 

Mexico. 

Garcia Salas first asserts that the BIA did not rule on his motion to 

remand and change venue. While the BIA did not formally deny the motion to 

remand, the order dismissing the appeal clearly indicates that the BIA found 

no prejudicial error in the IJ’s denial of the request to transfer venue. Thus, 

Garcia Salas received full and fair consideration of his request. See Roy v. 

Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 139 (5th Cir. 2004).

Regarding the denial of the motion to change venue, Garcia Salas argues 

that his due process rights were denied because he was not allowed the 

opportunity to have his claim for derivative relief heard. Garcia Salas was not 

denied notice, hearing, or an appeal. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 346 

(5th Cir. 2005). As noted by the BIA, Garcia Salas’s claim was based on the 

same facts giving rise to the claim raised by his wife. Moreover, even if there 

was a due process violation, Garcia Salas cannot show that the due process 

violation resulted in substantial prejudice. See Anwar v. I.N.S., 116 F.3d 140, 

144-45 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Garcia Salas argues that the BIA and IJ erred in finding that he failed 

to show that he was persecuted on account of membership in a social group. 

He also asserts that the BIA and IJ erred in determining that he failed to show 

that it was more likely than not that he would be subjected to torture if 

returned to Mexico. 

 Case: 16-60823 Document: 00514236754 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2017
No. 16-60823

3

We “review only the BIA’s decision, . . . unless the IJ’s decision has some 

impact on” that decision. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Factual findings are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard, and 

legal questions are reviewed de novo. Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 584 

(5th Cir. 2011). Under the substantial evidence standard, the petitioner must 

show that “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could 

reach” a conclusion contrary to the petitioner’s position. Orellana-Monson v. 

Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted).

The threat Garcia Salas received does not show that he was persecuted 

on account of his membership in a particular social group; rather any 

persecution faced by Garcia Salas and his family was based upon a personal 

vendetta. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 792-93 (5th Cir. 2004). The 

BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions that Garcia Salas was not entitled to asylum are 

supported by substantial evidence. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518. 

Because Garcia Salas fails to show that he is entitled to relief in the form of 

asylum, he cannot establish entitlement to withholding of removal, which 

requires a higher burden of proof. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658-59 

(5th Cir. 2012). Further, the record does not show that it was more likely than 

not that Garcia Salas would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a 

Mexican government official if returned to Mexico; the BIA and IJ did not err 

in determining that he is not entitled to protection under the CAT. See Hakim 

v. Holder, 628 F.3d 151, 155 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Garcia Salas’s petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 16-60823 Document: 00514236754 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/14/2017