United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-60727 

Summary Calendar 

Gabriel Alejandro Ruiz Figueroa, also known as Gabriel 

Alejandro Ruiz, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

BIA No. A094 278 071 

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Gabriel Alejandro Ruiz Figueroa, a native and citizen of Honduras, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision 

*

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

April 14, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-60727 Document: 00516281371 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2022
No. 20-60727 

2 

affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for 

withholding of removal. 

When the BIA affirms the IJ without opinion, as it did here, we review 

the IJ’s decision. See Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Findings of fact, including the denial of withholding of removal, are reviewed 

under the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 

1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may not 

reverse a factual finding unless the evidence “compels” such a reversal—

i.e., the evidence must be “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could 

reach a contrary conclusion.” Id. Conclusions of law and whether we have 

subject-matter jurisdiction over an issue are reviewed de novo. See Sharma 

v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013); Garcia-Melendez v. Ashcroft, 351 

F.3d 657, 660 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Ruiz Figueroa failed to raise before the BIA in the first instance 

(1) whether the IJ failed to clarify his particular social group (PSG) and 

(2) whether the IJ and BIA erred by not finding him prima facie eligible for 

cancellation of removal. Thus, he has failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies as to these issues, which deprives us of jurisdiction to review them. 

See Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 766 (5th Cir. 2020). 

His PSG of “Honduran men persecuted by gangs who are protected 

by the police” is not cognizable because it does not exist independently of the 

persecution. See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 229 (5th Cir. 2019). 

Contrary to Ruiz Figueroa’s contention, the IJ’s analysis of the circular 

nature of his PSG involved more than just rejecting it at the “mere mention” 

of the persecution. Because Ruiz Figueroa failed to assert a cognizable PSG, 

his withholding of removal claim fails, see id. at 224, 229, and this court need 

not evaluate the rest of his issues raised on review related to withholding of 

removal, see INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule 

Case: 20-60727 Document: 00516281371 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2022
No. 20-60727 

3 

courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision 

of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”). 

Accordingly, his petition for review is DISMISSED in part and 

DENIED in part. 

Case: 20-60727 Document: 00516281371 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/14/2022