Case: 17-60289 Document: 00514569440 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 17-60289 July 24, 2018 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ELFEGO EMMANUEL ARCE-AGUIRRE, also known as David Arce-Aguirre, also known as Manuel Arce, also known as Christian David Trevino, Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A205 458 152 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Elfego Emmanuel Arce-Aguirre, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 17-60289 Document: 00514569440 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2018 No. 17-60289 We generally review only the BIA’s decision except to the extent that the IJ’s ruling influences the BIA. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Here, the BIA approved of, and relied on, the IJ’s findings; thus, we may review the decisions of the IJ and BIA. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536. Additionally, we review for substantial evidence the determination that an alien is not eligible for relief. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Under that standard, this court may not reverse the factual findings of the BIA unless the evidence compels it, i.e., the evidence must be so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it. Wang, 569 F.3d at 536-37. Arce-Aguirre challenges his prior deportation in 2012, arguing that misinformation by a government agent caused him to waive his due process rights and sign a stipulated request for removal. However, he did not raise this as an issue in his appeal to the BIA. Accordingly, he has failed to exhaust this issue and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). For the first time in his reply brief, Arce- Aguirre argues that his 2006 Texas conviction of attempted burglary did not constitute a crime involving moral turpitude, and he contends that he is entitled to apply for asylum. However, we will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Additionally, Arce-Aguirre contends that he is entitled to withholding of removal because he demonstrated that it was more likely than not that he would be persecuted upon his return to Mexico based on his membership in a social group comprised of “young, [m]ale, repatriated Mexicans raised in the United States since childhood and who can’t speak Mexican ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals