Ernesto Hernandez-Rivera v. Jefferson Sessi

Case: 17-60359 Document: 00514465329 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/09/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 17-60359 May 9, 2018 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ERNESTO HERNANDEZ-RIVERA; JUSTIN ERNESTO HERNANDEZ- REYES, Petitioners v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 682 045 BIA No. A208 682 046 Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ernesto Hernandez-Rivera and his minor son, Justin Ernesto Hernandez-Rivera, appeal the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and ordering that they be removed to El Salvador. The BIA held that the Immigration Judge (IJ) did not * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-60359 Document: 00514465329 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/09/2018 No. 17-60359 err in finding that Hernandez-Rivera’s brother was killed because he was an active police officer working to stop gangs, rather than on account of a protected ground, and that the threats Hernandez-Rivera received did not rise to the level of past persecution. The BIA also held the IJ did not err in finding that it was reasonable for Hernandez-Rivera to relocate within El Salvador because he has lived for several months in Rosario La Paz without threats or harm. Finally, the BIA held that the IJ did not err in holding Hernandez- Rivera was not entitled to relief under the CAT because he did not show that it was more likely than not that he would by tortured by or with the acquiescence of a government official. We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings regarding eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal for substantial evidence. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). Under the substantial evidence standard, “reversal is improper unless the court decides ‘not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it.’” Id. at 518 (quoting Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006)). We review the decision of the IJ only to the extent that it influenced the BIA’s decision. Le v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 98, 104 (5th Cir. 2016). On appeal, Hernandez-Rivera argues that (1) the agency erred in applying the bar on claims based on risks associated with the normal course of police work and that his case is distinguishable from Matter of Fuentes, 19 I. & N. Dec. 658 (BIA 1988), because his brother was off duty when he was killed; (2) the agency erred in finding the threats he received from gang members, his brother’s murder, and the documentary evidence he presented did not rise to the level of past persecution; ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals