Court Opinion

ID: 9403013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-20 00:00:52.960687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:03.802604
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60342       Document: 00516791595             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/19/2023

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

                                     No. 22-60342                                   FILED
                                   Summary Calendar                             June 19, 2023
                                   ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                    Clerk
   Andre Oneil Taylor,

                                                                               Petitioner,

                                           versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                             Respondent.
                    ______________________________

                       Petition for Review of an Order of the
                           Board of Immigration Appeals
                             Agency No. A088 935 690
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Andre Oneil Taylor, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for
   review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his
   appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for
   deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and

          _____________________
          *
              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   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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.
Case: 22-60342      Document: 00516791595          Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/19/2023

                                    No. 22-60342

   ordering him removed. We review the denial of CAT claims for substantial
   evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Pursuant to
   this standard, we may not disturb the BIA’s decision unless the evidence
   “compels” a contrary conclusion. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). Taylor has not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion
   contrary to that of the BIA on the issue whether he showed Jamaican officials
   would acquiesce in his torture if he were repatriated. See id.; Qorane v. Barr,
   919 F.3d 904, 911 (5th Cir. 2019); Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343,
   351 (5th Cir. 2006). Because official acquiescence is an essential element of
   a CAT claim, there is no need to consider his remaining arguments
   concerning this form of relief. See Tabora Gutierrez, 12 F.4th at 502; INS v.
   Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam).
          Insofar as Taylor argues that the BIA erred by failing to afford him the
   liberal construction due pro se litigants, our review of the record refutes this
   claim. See Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885, 890 (5th Cir. 2014). Insofar as he
   complains that his case was heard by one judge rather than three and that the
   BIA did not exercise its discretion to sua sponte reopen his proceedings, we
   lack jurisdiction to consider these arguments. See Hernandez-Castillo v.
   Sessions, 875 F.3d 199, 206 (5th Cir. 2017); Cantu-Delgadillo v. Holder,
   584 F.3d 682, 690-91 (5th Cir. 2009). His challenge to the BIA’s denial of
   his motion to reopen fails because he cites nothing undermining the BIA’s
   conclusion that it had no jurisdiction over S-visas and thus shows no abuse of
   discretion in connection with the BIA’s denial of the motion. See Gonzalez-
   Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 304-05 (5th Cir. 2017); see also Matter of G-
   K, 26 I.&N. Dec. 88, 92 (BIA 2013). Finally, his motion for appointed
   counsel lacks merit because this case does not present exceptional
   circumstances. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982).
   The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part for
   want of jurisdiction. The motion for appointed counsel is DENIED.

                                              2