Court Opinion

ID: 9375347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 16:00:55.084704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:58.118999
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60241         Document: 00516655714             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/24/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 22-60241
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                               February 24, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Henry Pablo Ramos Marquez,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A205 288 680
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Henry Pablo Ramos Marquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
   petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing
   his appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application
   for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against
   Torture (CAT).

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60241      Document: 00516655714           Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/24/2023

                                     No. 22-60241

          In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s, to the extent, as in this
   instance, it influenced the BIA), legal conclusions are reviewed de novo;
   factual findings, for substantial evidence. E.g., Orellana-Monson v. Holder,
   685 F.3d 511, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2012).        Under the substantial-evidence
   standard, petitioner must demonstrate “the evidence is so compelling that
   no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion”.            Chen v.
   Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
          To qualify for withholding of removal, “applicant must demonstrate
   a clear probability of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality,
   membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”. Id. at 1138
   (citation omitted). Because Marquez does not challenge the BIA’s ruling
   that he failed to make this showing, he abandons this claim. E.g., Soadjede v.
   Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (noting issues not briefed are
   abandoned). And, because Marquez fails to show error in the BIA’s ruling
   that he had not made the persecution showing, we need not consider his
   nexus assertion. E.g., INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“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.”).
          Finally, he fails to show evidence compels a ruling contrary to that of
   the BIA on whether he showed he more likely than not would be tortured
   with governmental acquiescence if repatriated; therefore, he shows no error
   in the denial of his CAT claim. E.g., Tabora Gutierrez v. Garland, 12 F.4th
   496, 502 (5th Cir. 2021) (explaining applicant must show “it is more likely
   than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of
   removal” (citation omitted)).
          DENIED.

                                          2