Court Opinion

ID: 9375350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 16:00:56.212298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:58.131585
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60272        Document: 00516653328             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/23/2023

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

                                      No. 22-60272                                   FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                          February 23, 2023
                                    ____________
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
   Francisco Noe Nolasco,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A206 259 053
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Francisco Noe Nolasco, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions
   this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   dismissing in part and remanding in part his appeal from an order of an
   Immigration Judge denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
   under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). See Holguin-Mendoza v.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60272      Document: 00516653328            Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/23/2023

                                      No. 22-60272

   Lynch, 835 F.3d 508, 509 (5th Cir. 2018). Because the BIA’s denial of asylum,
   withholding of removal, and CAT relief is reviewed under the substantial
   evidence standard, it may not be disturbed unless the evidence “compels” a
   contrary conclusion. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Chen v. Gonzales, 470
   F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
          This standard has not been met. Because Nolasco points to neither
   evidence nor authority showing that his proposed particular social groups
   were distinct and particular, he fails to show that the evidence compels a
   conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the issue whether he was eligible
   for asylum and withholding. See Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 402 (5th Cir.
   2021); Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 229 (5th Cir. 2019); Zhang, 432
   F.3d at 344; Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 806 (5th Cir. 2002). We need not
   consider his remaining arguments concerning these forms of relief. See INS
   v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). Similarly, his challenge to the denial
   of CAT relief fails because he cites nothing compelling a conclusion contrary
   to that of the BIA on the issue whether he more likely than not will be tortured
   with government acquiescence if repatriated. See Morales v. Sessions, 860
   F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017); Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. The petition for review
   is DENIED.

                                           2