IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60550

Summary Calendar

ESTEBAN POSCUAL-JIMENEZ,

Petitioner

v.

JEFF SESSIONS, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A205 006 221

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Through counsel, Esteban Poscual-Jimenez, a native and citizen of 

Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA) affirming the denial of his applications for withholding of removal and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the 

decision of the BIA and will consider the immigration judge’s decision only to 

the extent it influenced the BIA. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 

 

* 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

February 22, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60550 Document: 00513885441 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2017
No. 15-60550

2

2009). Questions of law are reviewed de novo and findings of fact are reviewed 

for substantial evidence. Id. Under the substantial evidence standard, “[t]he 

alien must show that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable 

factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th 

Cir. 2009).

Poscual-Jimenez’s brief is virtually identical to the brief he filed with the 

BIA. Furthermore, the arguments section contains only conclusory assertions 

and no citations to the administrative record. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A). 

Because Poscual-Jimenez has not meaningfully challenged the BIA’s reasoning 

that he was ineligible for withholding of removal and CAT protection, he is 

deemed to have waived those claims. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 

448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). Even if we were to overlook the waiver issue, PoscualJimenez’s arguments regarding his request for withholding of removal and 

CAT protection are without merit.

In order to be entitled to withholding of removal, an alien must show a 

clear probability of persecution, i.e., that it is more likely than not that his life 

or freedom will be threatened by persecution based on one of five enumerated 

grounds, including membership in a particular social group. Roy v. Ashcroft, 

389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b). To show persecution 

based on membership in a particular social group, an alien must show that he 

is a member “of a group of persons that share a common immutable 

characteristic that they either cannot change or should not be required to 

change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences.” 

Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). A particular social group is one that 

has “social visibility,” meaning that “members of a society perceive those with 

the characteristic in question as members of a social group,” and 

 Case: 15-60550 Document: 00513885441 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2017
No. 15-60550

3

“particularity,” meaning that the group “can accurately be described in a 

manner sufficiently distinct that the group would be recognized, in the society 

in question, as a discrete class of persons.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted).

We have declined to recognize business owners or people connected by 

economic status as a protected group. Castillo-Enriquez v. Holder, 690 F.3d 

667, 668 (5th Cir. 2012). A person’s employment is also not generally 

considered to be an immutable characteristic. See Mwembie v. Gonzales, 

443 F.3d 405, 414-15 (5th Cir. 2006). Thus, to the extent Poscual-Jimenez 

claims he is a member of a particular social group based on the perception that 

he and his family are members of a taxi association and own land and taxi 

companies in Mexico, his challenge is unavailing. Furthermore, the record 

reflects that the Zetas targeted Poscual-Jimenez’s family to extort money from 

them and not to punish them for having a particular status. We have held that 

economic extortion is not a form of persecution based upon a protected group. 

See Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885, 890 (5th Cir. 2014).

To obtain relief under CAT, “an applicant must show that it is more 

likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to his home country.” 

Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Although past torture can support a CAT claim,

see 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3), Poscual-Jimenez did not present any evidence of

past harm, let alone torture. In addition, Poscual-Jimenez presented no 

evidence that he would be targeted for torture by instigation or acquiescence 

of the Mexican government.

Accordingly, the record does not compel a finding contrary to that of the 

BIA regarding whether Poscual-Jimenez is eligible for withholding of removal 

 Case: 15-60550 Document: 00513885441 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/22/2017
No. 15-60550

4

and CAT protection. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536-37. Poscual-Jimenez’s petition 

for review is DENIED.

 Case: 15-60550 Document: 00513885441 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/22/2017