IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60199

Summary Calendar

DANIEL ENRIQUEZ AGUILUZ-CALLEJAS,

Petitioner

v.

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

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A208 755 555

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel Enriquez Aguiluz-Callejas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

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

which dismissed his appeal and affirmed the order of the immigration judge 

(IJ) denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. AguiluzCallejas argues that, contrary to the decisions of the BIA and IJ rejecting his 

claim of past persecution, the gang violence and threats directed at him 

 

* 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

April 5, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60199 Document: 00514905058 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2019
No. 18-60199

2

constituted a non-physical emotional harm that rose to the level of persecution 

and the attendant interference with his education deprived him of one of life’s 

essentials. He further asserts that juveniles in El Salvador who are threatened 

and harassed by gangs that impede their education constitute a particular 

social group (PSG) and he should be granted asylum or withholding of removal

based on his fear of being persecuted due to his membership in that group.

We generally review the BIA’s decision and may review the IJ’s findings 

and conclusions where, as here, the BIA adopts them. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 

899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). Questions of law are reviewed de novo, OrellanaMonson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012), and factual findings are 

reviewed for substantial evidence, meaning reversal of factual findings is 

improper unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion, Mikhael v. INS, 

115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).

The BIA did not reach the issue whether Aguiluz-Callejas’s experiences 

with the gang rose to the level of persecution but instead found that he failed 

to show that he was threatened on account of a protected basis rather than 

subjected to threats due to the territorial dispute between two gangs described 

in his testimony. Aguiluz-Callejas, who is represented by counsel, does not 

address the BIA’s basis for its decision and has, therefore, waived review of his 

past persecution claim. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 

2003).

As the BIA and IJ found, Aguiluz-Callejas’s proposed PSG lacks both 

particularity and visibility because its members constitute a broad and diverse 

section of society, and the PSG is not materially distinguishable from those 

previously rejected by this court and the BIA in published decisions. See 

Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 516, 518.

 Case: 18-60199 Document: 00514905058 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2019
No. 18-60199

3

Finally, Aguiluz-Callejas’s argument that the BIA and IJ did not 

sufficiently consider guidance by the United Nations High Commissioner for 

Refugees regarding asylum requests by juveniles is without merit. See Kane 

v. Holder, 581 F.3d 231, 242 (5th Cir. 2009).

The petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 18-60199 Document: 00514905058 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2019