United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60521

Summary Calendar

Jose Noel Figueroa Gonzalez, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A075 464 130

Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jose Noel Figueroa Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 

for review of a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) affirming an Asylum 

Officer’s (AO’s) determination that he lacked a reasonable fear of 

persecution or torture. 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

November 16, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60521 Document: 00516547165 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2022
No. 21-60521

2

We have not decided whether challenges to an IJ’s upholding of an 

AO’s reasonable-fear determination should be reviewed under the 

substantial-evidence standard or the facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide-reason 

standard. There is no need for us to resolve this issue in this case, however, 

as Figueroa Gonzalez cannot prevail even under the more lenient substantialevidence standard, which requires us to let the disputed decision stand unless 

the evidence “compels” a contrary conclusion. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 

531, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2009); see Carbajal-Betanco v. Barr, 830 F. App’x 452, 

453 n.1 (5th Cir. 2020) (“[I]t is not necessary to determine the appropriate 

standard of review at this time because [the petitioner’s] claim fails even 

under the less deferential substantial evidence test.”).

Figueroa Gonzalez’s challenge to the IJ’s persecution determination 

fails because the evidence does not compel a conclusion that he was targeted 

due to any political opinion. See Changsheng Du v. Barr, 975 F.3d 444, 448 

(5th Cir. 2020) (“One could conclude that [the petitioner] expressed a[n 

anti-corruption] political opinion, but the evidence does not compel that 

conclusion.”). Nor does the evidence compel the conclusion that it is more 

likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Chen v. 

Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1139 (5th Cir. 2006) (noting that judicially imposed 

detention is typically not considered torture, which is defined as an act that 

causes “‘severe pain or suffering’” (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1))).

Finally, his due process claim fails because he has not shown substantial 

prejudice in connection with the acts and omissions underlying this claim. 

See Okpala v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 965, 971 (5th Cir. 2018). 

Insofar as he argues that we should reconsider our court’s procedures 

concerning motions for stays of removal, he impermissibly asks us to issue an 

advisory opinion, as there is currently no outstanding motion in this appeal. 

We therefore decline any such request. See Bayou Liberty Ass’n, Inc. v. U.S. 

Army Corps of Eng’rs, 217 F.3d 393, 397-98 (5th Cir. 2000). Finally, the 

Case: 21-60521 Document: 00516547165 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2022
No. 21-60521

3

respondent’s arguments seeking to relitigate the parties’ joint motion to 

remand are unavailing because that motion has already been adjudicated. 

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 21-60521 Document: 00516547165 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/16/2022