Case: 19-60622 Document: 00515680653 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-60622 December 21, 2020 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Albino Montoya-Velazquez, also known as Albino Montoya Velazquez, Petitioner, versus William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 239 872 Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Petitioner Albino Montoya-Velazquez petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA dismissed an appeal from an order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying asylum, * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-60622 Document: 00515680653 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2020 No. 19-60622 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In his appellate submissions, Montoya-Velazquez requests that this court remand the case to the BIA, contending, inter alia, that the BIA applied the incorrect standard of review to his claim for relief under the CAT. We deny the petition for review. To establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, the applicant must demonstrate that: (1) he has a fear of persecution in his country of nationality because of an actual or imputed protected ground; (2) there is a reasonable possibility of suffering such persecution if he were to return to that country; and (3) he is unable or unwilling to return to or avail himself of the protection of that country because of such persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i). An applicant must satisfy both a subjective and an objective component to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S 421, 431 (1987) (internal citations omitted). To meet the objective element of the test, the applicant must establish that (1) the applicant possesses a belief or characteristic that a persecutor would seek to overcome by punishment of some sort; (2) the persecutor is already aware, or could become aware, that the applicant possess this belief or characteristic; (3) the persecutor has the capability of punishing the alien; and (4) the persecutor has the inclination to punish the alien. Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 307-308 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted). The IJ concluded that although Montoya-Velazquez’s fear was subjectively real, it was not objectively reasonable. Montoya-Velazquez contends that the IJ did not work through the “four-part framework” to determine whether his fear of persecution is objectively reasonable. Montoya-Velazquez further maintains that the BIA erred by not conducting a de novo analysis applying the four-part framework. 2 Case: 19-60622 Document: 00515680653 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/21/2020 No. 19-60622 The IJ did not cite the four-part framework in his opinion, but it is apparent from the record that the IJ applied it. Because the IJ applied the proper framework, the BIA ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals