Case: 21-60485 Document: 00516444691 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 23, 2022 No. 21-60485 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Edgardo Ixquier-Morales; Mari Elizeth Ixquier-Grave, Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A202 131 327 Agency No. A202 131 329 Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Edgardo Ixquier-Morales and his daughter Mari Elizeth Ixquier- Grave are natives and citizens of Guatemala. They have filed a petition seeking review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-60485 Document: 00516444691 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2022 No. 21-60485 affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 1 This court has authority to review only the final decision of the BIA unless the underlying decision of the IJ influenced the BIA’s decision. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). In Ixquier-Morales’s case, the BIA affirmed the findings and conclusions of the IJ. Therefore, this court will review both decisions. See id. The factual determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under that standard, this court may not reverse the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. Ixquier-Morales argues in his pro se brief that jurisdiction never vested in the immigration court because his Notice to Appear failed to state the time and date of his removal hearing. This argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent in Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 691-93 (5th Cir. 2019), abrogated in part on other grounds by Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021). Ixquier-Morales further argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s finding that he was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection. 2 As the BIA explained, the gang members targeted Ixquier- 1 Because Ixquier-Morales is the lead petitioner and his daughter’s claims for immigration relief are derivative of his claim or are dependent on the same facts and circumstances of his case, this memo will hereinafter refer only to Ixquier-Morales unless otherwise specified. 2 As the BIA noted in its decision affirming the denial of Ixquier-Morales’s application for immigration relief, the Immigration and Nationality Act does not provide for derivative claims for withholding of removal. See Matter of A-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 275, 279 (BIA 2007). Thus, while Ixquier-Morales’s daughter was potentially eligible for asylum as 2 Case: 21-60485 Document: 00516444691 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/23/2022 No. 21-60485 Morales because through his work …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals