United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60612

Summary Calendar

Sealed Petitioner, 

Petitioner,

versus

Sealed Respondent, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A201 166 300

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the 

order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing an appeal from 

an order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying him deferral of removal under 

the Convention Against Torture (CAT), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17. 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 10, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 21-60612

2

We review the BIA’s decision and will consider the IJ’s underlying 

decision only if it impacted the BIA’s decision, as it did here. See Sharma v. 

Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Findings of fact, including the 

denial of CAT protection, 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, including whether we have jurisdiction, are reviewed 

de novo. Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2021).

Although Petitioner has already been removed to Mexico, his claim is 

not moot because he faces an automatic period of inadmissibility following 

his removal, which is a collateral legal consequence. See id.; 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(a)(9)(A). Thus, we have jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s case. See 

FDIC v. Belcher, 978 F.3d 959, 961 n.1 (5th Cir. 2020) (stating that mootness 

is a jurisdictional issue). Additionally, Petitioner is incorrect that, pursuant 

to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), we lack jurisdiction to review questions of fact 

because of his criminal conviction. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 

1690 (2020) (holding that § 1252(a)(2)(C) does not “preclude judicial review 

of factual challenges to CAT orders”).

Petitioner has failed to establish that the record compels a finding 

contrary to that of the BIA—that he would not be tortured by or with the 

acquiescence of the Mexican government upon removal. See Chen, 470 F.3d 

at 1134; Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 351 (5th Cir. 2006) 

(holding that “neither the failure to apprehend the persons threatening the 

alien, nor the lack of financial resources to eradicate the threat or risk of 

torture constitute sufficient state action for purposes” of CAT). Because he 

cannot satisfy the state action requirement of his CAT claim, we need not 

reach his other issues on review. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
No. 21-60612

3

(1976) (per curiam) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required 

to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 

they reach.”). 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s petition for review is DENIED.