Case: 18-60666 Document: 00515324370 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-60666 February 27, 2020 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JUAN CARLOS ZEPEDA ALVAREZ, also known as Juan Carlos Zepeda, Petitioner v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A204 807 868 Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Petitioner Juan Carlos Zepeda Alvarez petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the immigration judge (IJ), denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). To the extent that he is asserting that his asylum application is timely and that he alleged viable particular social groups based on his maternal and paternal families, * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-60666 Document: 00515324370 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2020 No. 18-60666 the BIA assumed these facts to be true, so we need not address them. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009) (stating that this court generally has authority to review only the decision of the BIA). Neither has Zepeda Alvarez shown that his case met the standard for assignment to a three-member panel of the BIA. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6). Zepeda Alvarez also contends that the BIA failed to give adequate consideration to the evidence supporting his claims of a well-founded fear of future persecution for purposes of establishing his eligibility for asylum. Although the agency’s opinion “must reflect meaningful consideration of the relevant substantial evidence supporting the alien’s claims,” Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996), the agency is not required to address evidentiary minutiae or write any lengthy exegesis. The BIA considered the evidence of harm suffered by Zepeda Alvarez’s cousins and the evidence that his father was targeted and assaulted on the basis of his political opinion, but it concluded that Zepeda Alvarez had failed to show a well-founded fear that he would be persecuted on account of a particular social group or an imputed political opinion. Zepeda Alvarez also complains of the BIA’s failure to consider a letter written by his aunt, but that document merely corroborated his father’s description of the single assault he suffered. The BIA also concluded that, to the extent Zepeda Alvarez was complaining of general unrest in Honduras or the risk that he could become a victim of gang activity, such complaints did not rise to the level of persecution. See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 492- 93 (5th Cir. 2015); Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 235 (BIA 2014). The BIA’s decision is rendered “in terms sufficient ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals