Case Name: Andres Angel GUILLEN-SILVERIO, Petitioner v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-05
Citations: 644 F. App'x 352
Docket Number: No. 15-60296
Parties: Andres Angel GUILLEN-SILVERIO, Petitioner v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 644
Pages: 352–353

Head Matter:
Andres Angel GUILLEN-SILVERIO, Petitioner v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-60296
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 5, 2016.
Stephen Ray Ramirez, Esq., Law Offices of Garcia, Ramirez, Gonzalez & Pina, P.C., San Antonio, TX, for Petitioner.
Craig Alan Newell, Jr., Trial Attorney, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Andres Angel Guillen-Silverio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his application for withholding of removal, and for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). (He conceded re-movability.)
Guillen challenges the BIA's determination he was not entitled to withholding of removal because he was not a member of a cognizable particular social group. He does not renew his contention he was entitled to withholding of removal because he faces persecution in Mexico based on his political beliefs, nor does he contest the BIA's determination he was not entitled to relief under the CAT; therefore, those claims are abandoned. See, e.g., Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003).
The BIA agreed with the IJ's conclusion that Guillen is not eligible for withholding of removal because he failed to show membership in a cognizable particular social group; accordingly, the decisions of both the BIA and IJ are reviewable for substantial evidence. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir.2002). In that regard, his burden is to demonstrate the evidence compels 'a conclusion contrary to that reached by the BIA and IJ. E.g., Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 186 (5th Cir.2004).
Guillen applied for withholding of removal based on his membership in the particular social group identified as "Mexican deportees who have lived many years in the United States, vulnerable to extortion, and resented by organized criminals now operating in Mexico". He contends his extended residency in the United States has instilled particular traits that will make him readily recognizable and vulnerable to abuse by criminals, and he is unable to,relocate. This is insufficient to show the BIA erred in upholding the IJ's determination that Guillen's proffered group lacks the requisite social distinction and particularity. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir.2012). Guillen points to no evidence in the record which compels a contrary conclusion; accordingly, he has not met his burden of proof. See Eduard, 379 F.3d at 186.
DENIED.
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.