Court Opinion

ID: 9394655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 00:00:46.378456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:01.485508
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60655         Document: 00516751429             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/15/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                      May 15, 2023
                                       No. 22-60655
                                     Summary Calendar                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
                                     ____________

   Antonio Ramirez-Mendoza,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A205 871 413
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Antonio Ramirez-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
   for review of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
   and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review
   the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and will consider the
   immigration judge’s (IJ) underlying decision only if it impacted the BIA’s

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60655        Document: 00516751429       Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/15/2023

                                   No. 22-60655

   decision. See Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Findings
   of fact, including the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and 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. (internal quotation marks
   and citation omitted). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Sharma,
   729 F.3d at 411.
           Regarding his asylum and withholding of removal claims, the IJ
   determined that Ramirez-Mendoza’s proposed particular social group (PSG)
   was not cognizable. The BIA held that Ramirez-Mendoza waived the issue
   on appeal because he failed meaningfully to challenge whether his PSG is
   cognizable. On review before us, Ramirez-Mendoza does not address the
   BIA’s ruling on waiver. Thus, Ramirez-Mendoza has waived the issue of
   whether his proposed PSG is cognizable, which is dispositive of his asylum
   and withholding of removal claims. See Lopez-Perez v. Garland, 35 F.4th 953,
   957 n.1 (5th Cir. 2022) (concluding that petitioner who failed to brief an
   argument forfeited it); Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir.
   2019) (noting that to qualify for both asylum and withholding of removal,
   persecution must be based on a protected ground, such as membership in a
   PSG).
           In support of the state action requirement of his CAT claim, see
   Hakim v. Holder, 628 F.3d 151, 155 (5th Cir. 2010), Ramirez-Mendoza points
   to 2018 country data regarding corrupt police officers who participated in
   kidnapping and extortion, and conspired with criminal groups. Although the
   country data discusses the corruption of some police officers in Mexico, it
   also discusses the steps, albeit limited, that the government has taken to
   combat corruption. Thus, Ramirez-Mendoza has not established that the

                                            2
Case: 22-60655     Document: 00516751429           Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/15/2023

                                    No. 22-60655

   record compels a finding that Mexico will acquiesce in any alleged torture.
   See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1142; see also Aviles-Tavera v. Garland, 22 F.4th 478,
   486 (5th Cir. 2022) (holding that “a foreign government’s failure to
   apprehend the persons threatening the alien or the lack of financial resources
   to eradicate the threat or risk of torture do not constitute sufficient state
   action” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
          Accordingly, Ramirez-Mendoza’s petition for review is DENIED.

                                             3