Case: 19-60887 Document: 00515683037 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 22, 2020 No. 19-60887 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Maria De La Paz Castillo-Cruz; Kevin Abimael Ochoa- Castillo, Petitioners, versus William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 371 260 BIA No. A208 371 261 Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Maria De La Paz Castillo-Cruz and Kevin Abimael Ochoa-Castillo petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). They challenge the denial of relief from removal on four grounds. They * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-60887 Document: 00515683037 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2020 No. 19-60887 contend that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction due to a defect with the notice to appear (NTA), that untranslated portions in the transcript of the hearing before the immigration judge (IJ) made a complete understanding of the transcript impossible, that they established a well-founded fear of future prosecution based on either an imputed political opinion or membership in a particular social group, and that they qualify for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Under substantial evidence review, “this court may not reverse the BIA's factual findings unless the evidence compels it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536–37 (5th Cir. 2009); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The alien “must show that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Id. By contrast, this court reviews the BIA’s legal determinations de novo, “including whether the Board applied an inappropriate standard or failed to make necessary findings.” Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates, 846 F.3d 806, 810 (5th Cir. 2017). If this court determines that the BIA applied an inappropriate standard or neglected necessary findings, the court will vacate the decision and remand to the BIA. Id. at 811, 813. We cannot reach Castillo-Cruz and Ochoa-Castillo’s first argument, which is that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction due to the fact that the initial NTA did not include the time and place of the hearing, as they failed to exhaust the issue by raising it with the BIA. Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), on which they rely, was decided before they filed their brief on appeal to the BIA. They could have raised Pereira before the BIA on appeal. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2009); see, e.g., Matter of Bermudez-Cota, 27 I. & N. Dec. 441 (BIA 2018) (addressing Periera issue). Because the issue was not exhausted, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals