United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-60370 

Summary Calendar 

Julio Perez-Gomez, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

BIA No. A208 565 856 

Before Barksdale, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Julio Perez-Gomez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denying his applications 

for: asylum; withholding of removal; and relief under the Convention 

Against Torture (CAT). 

*

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

August 26, 2021 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-60370 Document: 00515996947 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2021
No. 20-60370 

2 

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

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

for substantial evidence. E.g., Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–

18 (5th Cir. 2012). 

The IJ denied Perez’ applications for asylum and withholding of 

removal, finding he had neither alleged the Guatemalan government had 

persecuted him nor demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution based 

on that government’s unwillingness or inability to control the gangs that 

Perez claimed to fear. See Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109, 113 (5th 

Cir. 2006) (explaining that, for asylum, applicant must demonstrate 

persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution “by the government or 

forces that a government is unable or unwilling to control” (citing 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1101(a)(42)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 

138 (5th Cir. 2004) (explaining withholding of removal is a higher standard 

than asylum, requiring applicant to demonstrate a clear probability of 

persecution). The IJ also denied Perez relief under the CAT, finding he had 

not demonstrated it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by, or 

with the acquiescence of, the Guatemalan government. See, e.g., Chen v. 

Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1139 (5th Cir. 2006). 

The BIA adopted the order of the Immigration Judge (IJ). Perez 

contends, inter alia: the BIA erred by upholding the IJ’s findings. He did 

not, however, dispute these findings before the BIA. Perez made no mention 

of the Guatemalan government’s ability or willingness to control the cited 

gangs or the government’s participation or acquiescence to any torture he 

may endure if returned to Guatemala. Because he failed to exhaust these 

claims before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to review them. See, e.g., Roy, 389 

F.3d at 137. 

Case: 20-60370 Document: 00515996947 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2021
No. 20-60370 

3 

These unreviewable findings are fatal to Perez’ claims for relief. 

Accordingly, we need not address his remaining contentions. 

DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 

Case: 20-60370 Document: 00515996947 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/26/2021