Case: 17-60393 Document: 00514650765 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 17-60393 September 20, 2018 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk PEDRO RODRIGUEZ SORIANO, also known as Pedro Rodriguez, 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 649 607 Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Pedro Rodriguez Soriano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for withholding of removal and relief 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-60393 Document: 00514650765 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2018 No. 17-60393 We review the decision of the BIA and will consider the IJ’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). Questions of law are reviewed de novo and findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence. Id. Under the substantial evidence standard, the 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). Soriano challenges the BIA’s denial of his request for withholding of removal based on his membership in the particular social group of his family. Even if Soriano’s proposed particular social group were accepted, the record does not compel the conclusion that his membership in that group is a central reason why he would be targeted. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 537; Shaikh, 588 F.3d at 864. Rather, the record establishes that the Zetas acted for purely personal or criminal reasons, not because Soriano’s cousins were members of his family. See Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885, 890 (5th Cir. 2014); Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 792-93 (5th Cir. 2004). To the extent Soriano challenges the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal based on his membership in the particular social group of “family members of Mexicans injured or harmed by members of organized crime,” he does not meaningfully challenge the BIA’s reasoning that he was ineligible for relief. Soriano also briefs no argument challenging the BIA’s denial of CAT protection. Accordingly, Soriano has abandoned any challenge to the denial of relief on those grounds. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Soriano’s petition for review is DENIED. 2 17-60393 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ca5 5th Cir. Pedro Soriano v. Jefferson Sessions, III 20 September 2018 Immigration Unpublished 9c63855d44ea2353112cc315afb8f88173f73455
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals