Case: 20-60673 Document: 00516193629 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 7, 2022 No. 20-60673 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Jorge Andres Rodriguez-Arevalo; Ademir Enrique Rodriguez-Arevalo, Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. 202 079 678 BIA No. 202 079 677 Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Jorge Andres Rodriguez-Arevalo (Jorge) and Ademir Enrique Rodriguez-Arevalo (Ademir), natives and citizens of El Salvador, are brothers who petition this court for review of the decision of the Board of * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-60673 Document: 00516193629 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2022 No. 20-60673 Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). They also move for a remand of this matter to the IJ and for this case to be placed in abeyance. We review the decision of the BIA and will consider the IJ’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. See Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). We review questions of law de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. Under the substantial evidence standard, “[t]he alien must show that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009). First, relying upon Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), the petitioners argue that the BIA erred in finding that the Department of Homeland Security properly initiated removal proceedings against them because the Notice to Appear failed to specify the time and location of the removal proceedings. However, the BIA did not err in determining that the Department properly commenced removal proceedings because a Notice to Appear is “sufficient to commence proceedings even if it does not include the time, date, or place of the initial hearing.” Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 693 (5th Cir. 2019), abrogated in part on other grounds by Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021). Second, the petitioners argue that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s determination that they are not entitled to asylum and withholding of removal based upon their persecution by gangs for being members of the particular social group consisting of young Salvadoran males who lack parental protection. We need not resolve the question of whether the petitioners’ proposed particular social group is cognizable because the 2 Case: 20-60673 Document: 00516193629 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/07/2022 No. 20-60673 evidence does not compel a finding that there was a requisite nexus between the harm they suffered or feared and membership in that group. See …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals