Case: 20-60424 Document: 00515832795 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 22, 2021 No. 20-60424 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Juan Carlos Hernandez, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A205 211 450 Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Juan Carlos Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for withholding of removal and dismissing his appeal of the IJ’s denial of his * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-60424 Document: 00515832795 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2021 No. 20-60424 application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Hernandez specifically contends that the BIA erred in its conclusion that his proposed particular social group (PSG), males between the ages of 25 and 45 who have not lived in Mexico for over ten years, was not a legally cognizable PSG, and that he did not establish that he would face persecution on account of this proposed PSG if he returned to Mexico. He also argues that the BIA erred in dismissing his application for relief under the CAT, contending that he would be tortured or killed if he were removed to Mexico. We review factual findings under the substantial evidence standard and legal questions de novo. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may not reverse the BIA’s factual findings unless “the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009). Among the factual findings that we review for substantial evidence is the conclusion that an alien is not eligible for withholding of removal. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Hernandez asserts that he would likely be persecuted in Mexico on account of his membership in his proposed PSG because people would perceive him as wealthy after having lived in the United States for over 10 years. However, substantial evidence supports the decision that Hernandez did not establish that he was a member of a legally cognizable PSG. We have repeatedly held that persons perceived as wealthy because they are returning to their home country from the United States do not constitute a sufficiently particular and socially visible PSG. See Gonzalez-Soto v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 682, 684 (5th Cir. 2016); see also Castillo-Enriquez v. Holder, 690 F.3d 667, 668 (5th Cir. 2012). 2 Case: 20-60424 Document: 00515832795 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/22/2021 No. 20-60424 Substantial evidence also supports the decision that Hernandez did not demonstrate a “clear …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals