Case: 17-60708 Document: 00514624381 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/31/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 17-60708 August 31, 2018 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ANSELMO RUBIO-MONCADA, Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A205 346 054 Before BARKSDALE, ELROD, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Anselmo Rubio-Moncada, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for withholding of removal. Rubio contends the BIA erred in ruling he was ineligible for relief because he was persecuted due to, and had a well-founded fear of persecution * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: 17-60708 Document: 00514624381 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/31/2018 No. 17-60708 on account of, his membership in two particular social groups: his family and Mexican deportees. Rubio alleges that, while he lived in Mexico, a group of men attempted to rob him of the proceeds he obtained from the sale of his truck. Rubio’s neighbor allegedly intervened in the robbery and shot one of Rubio’s assailants. In his application for relief before the IJ, Rubio alleged the attackers thereafter threatened violence against his family in retribution for one of the assailants’ being wounded in the robbery attempt. He also alleged—before the IJ, but not before the BIA—he feared persecution because he is a Mexican deportee and other Mexican citizens perceive deportees as wealthy, subjecting deportees to robberies and violence. “When considering a petition for review, this court has the authority to review only the BIA’s decision, not the IJ’s decision, unless the IJ’s decision has some impact on the BIA’s decision.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Here, because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s conclusions as to Rubio’s eligibility for relief, we review both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions under the substantial-evidence standard. Id. at 536–37. Under that standard, Rubio “must show that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it”. Id. at 537. But, we lack jurisdiction to review issues not raised before the BIA. E.g., Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318–19 (5th Cir. 2009). The evidence does not compel a finding Rubio has been, or likely would be, persecuted due to his membership in his family. E.g., Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2012). Even if his family qualified as a cognizable particular social group, there is no indication his family membership is a “central reason” he was or would be targeted. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009). Rather, the record shows his 2 Case: 17-60708 Document: ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals