Case: 17-60429 Document: 00514747332 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-60429 United States Court of Appeals No. 17-60859 Fifth Circuit FILED Summary Calendar December 4, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ADONAY MIGUELES ALFARO, Also Known as Adonay Alfaro Migueles, Also Known as Adonay Alfaro, Petitioner, versus MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A 205 291 592 Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In consolidated petitions for review, Adonay Migueles Alfaro, a native * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-60429 Document: 00514747332 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2018 No. 17-60429 No. 17-60859 and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of (1) the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of the order of the immi- gration judge (“IJ”) denying withholding of removal and relief under the Con- vention Against Torture (“CAT”) and (2) the BIA’s denial of his motion to re- consider the dismissal of his appeal. Maintaining that he is entitled to with- holding of removal and relief under CAT, Migueles Alfaro contends that he adequately demonstrated eligibility for relief based on his political opinion and his membership in a particular social group. As an initial matter, we agree with the Acting Attorney General that Migueles Alfaro has abandoned, by fail- ing to brief, any meaningful argument on the denial of CAT relief, see Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003), which is a distinct claim that “should receive separate analytical attention,” Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906−07 (5th Cir. 2002). As for Migueles Alfaro’s claim for withholding of removal, “[w]e review the order of the BIA and will consider the underlying decision of the IJ only if it influenced the determination of the BIA.” Ojeda-Calderon v. Holder, 726 F.3d 669, 672 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omit- ted). We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo, with deference to its rea- sonable interpretations of immigration statutes, and we review its factual findings for substantial evidence. Zermeno v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 514, 516 (5th Cir. 2016). Under the substantial evidence standard, “reversal is improper unless we decide not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it.” Revencu v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 396, 401 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). First, Migueles Alfaro contends that the BIA erred by applying Matter of S–E–G–, 24 I. & N. Dec. 579, 582 (BIA 2008), which held that a particular social group must “have particular and well-defined boundaries” and must “possess 2 Case: 17-60429 Document: 00514747332 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/04/2018 No. 17-60429 No. 17-60859 a recognized level of social visibility.” Relying on Seventh-Circuit caselaw, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals