Case: 19-60004 Document: 00515557434 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 9, 2020 No. 19-60004 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Miguel Angel Romero-Oliva; Kevin Geovanny Romero- Melendez, Petitioners, versus William P. Barr, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 886 745 BIA No. A208 886 746 Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Miguel Angel Romero-Oliva and his teenage son, Kevin Geovanny Romero-Melendez, are natives and citizens of Honduras who entered the * Pursuant to 5TH CIRcuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIRCUIT RULE 47.5.4.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: 19-60004 Document: 00515557434 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2020 No. 19-60004 United States at or near Brownsville, Texas, on or about March 13, 2016, without being admitted or paroled. Romero-Oliva and Romero-Melendez have filed a petition for review of the order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Romero-Oliva sought asylum and withholding of removal based on membership in a particular social group (PSG), which he identified as “Honduran men who fear violence and delinquency in their home country.” He listed Romero-Melendez as a derivative beneficiary of his asylum application. We have authority to review only the order of the BIA unless the underlying decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) influenced the BIA’s decision. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). The BIA’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). This court reviews the BIA’s findings for substantial evidence, and it will not disturb such findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. at 517-18. Romero-Oliva argues that his testimony allowed for the reasonable inference that his proposed PSG also included his family’s status as landowners and his sibling connection as the basis for or a component of a cognizable PSG and that the IJ erred in failing to address that PSG. He asserts that the IJ’s failure deprived him of a full and fair hearing and that the BIA should have ordered a remand. He further argues that the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s finding that he did not suffer any persecution because he experienced threats that were highly imminent and menacing in nature. An asylum applicant has the burden to establish his entitlement to relief by “clearly indicat[ing] on the record before the [IJ] . . . . the exact delineation of any particular social group(s) to which she claims to belong.” 2 Case: 19-60004 Document: 00515557434 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/09/2020 No. 19-60004 Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 191 (BIA 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). During ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals