IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60147

Summary Calendar 

DAVID ALFARO-VASQUEZ, also known as Daniel Vasquez, also known as 

David Ernesto Vasquez, also known as David Alfaro, also known as David 

Vasquez 

Petitioner 

v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Respondent 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

BIA No. A088 841 950

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

David Alfaro-Vasquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for 

review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing 

his appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of withholding of removal and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Alfaro-Vasquez has 

abandoned any challenge to the denial of protection under the CAT by failing 

 

* 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

Fif h Circuit

FILED

June 2, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60147 Document: 00514016863 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2017
No. 16-60147

2 

to address the issue in his brief. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 

(5th Cir. 2003). He argues instead that the IJ and the BIA erred by denying 

his application for withholding of removal because he established that he was 

persecuted, and will be persecuted, by gangs on account of his Christian faith 

and his membership in the particular social group consisting of farmers or 

landowners. 

 We review only the BIA’s decision, “unless the IJ’s decision has some 

impact on the BIA’s decision.” Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 

(5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Questions of 

law are reviewed de novo, but with deference to the BIA’s interpretations of 

ambiguous immigration statutes. Id. Findings of fact are reviewed under the 

substantial evidence standard. Id. at 517. Under this standard, AlfaroVasquez “has the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no 

reasonable factfinder could” fail to rule in his favor. Id. at 518 (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). 

The BIA determined that Alfaro-Vasquez had failed to show that he was 

persecuted on account of his religion or membership in the particular social 

group of farmers or landowners because he failed to show that either of these 

bases was the central reason for the claimed persecution; instead, the BIA 

concluded that gang members recruited him to increase their power. AlfaroVasquez does not specifically dispute these findings, and his testimony was 

insufficient to establish that a protected ground would be at least “one central 

reason” for the harm he fears. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 

2009). Thus, Alfaro-Vasquez has not shown that “the evidence is so compelling 

that no reasonable factfinder could” fail to rule in his favor. Orellana-Monson, 

685 F.3d at 518.

 Case: 16-60147 Document: 00514016863 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2017
No. 16-60147

3 

We need not resolve Alfaro-Vasquez’s contentions that the IJ erred by 

determining that he was not credible, by failing to consider the deaths of his 

cousin and his cousin’s wife as evidence of persecution, and by failing to allow 

him to introduce additional evidence in light of the credibility determination. 

The IJ’s decision is not before us because the BIA did not adopt the IJ’s 

credibility determinations. See id. at 517. 

Alfaro-Vasquez’s petition for review is DENIED. 

 Case: 16-60147 Document: 00514016863 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/02/2017