Case: 20-60930 Document: 00516350328 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 9, 2022 No. 20-60930 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Salem Isai Alvarado-Velasquez, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 158 658 Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Salem Isai Alvarado-Velasquez petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition. * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-60930 Document: 00516350328 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2022 No. 20-60930 I. Alvarado-Velasquez, a Honduran citizen, entered the United States in April 2015 without a valid entry document. He appeared, with counsel, at a hearing before an immigration judge (IJ) and conceded that he is removable. He then filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He asserted a fear of returning to Honduras because a gang known as “Los Grillos” demanded monthly payments from his family’s business and threatened to harm him and members of his family if they did not pay. The IJ first concluded petitioner’s application for asylum was time- barred. In the alternative, the IJ concluded the application failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground and had not established petitioner would more likely than not be tortured in Honduras. Petitioner asserted he was a member of a particular social group (PSG) of “Honduran business owners,” but the IJ concluded that group is not cognizable under the INA. The IJ therefore denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. Petitioner appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. The BIA dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the IJ that petitioner had not established eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal because his proposed PSG of “Honduran business owners” was not cognizable. The BIA also agreed with the IJ that the petitioner had failed to establish eligibility for protection under the CAT. Alvarado-Velasquez petitioned this court for review of the BIA’s order and asks us to remand the case with instructions to grant the application for asylum and withholding of removal. Alvarado-Velasquez’s petition does not challenge the Board’s conclusion that he is ineligible for CAT protection. 2 Case: 20-60930 Document: 00516350328 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/09/2022 No. 20-60930 II. “We review the BIA’s decision and only consider the IJ’s decision to the extent that it influenced the BIA.” Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). “We review questions of law de novo and factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, which requires only that the BIA’s decisions be supported by record evidence and …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals