Case: 19-60532 Document: 00515691791 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-60532 January 4, 2021 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Francisco Espinoza-Villasenor, also known as Francisco M. Espinosa, 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 239 029 Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Francisco Espinoza-Villasenor, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA): dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for withholding of removal and * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-60532 Document: 00515691791 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2021 No. 19-60532 relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT); and denying his request to remand the proceeding to consider his eligibility for cancellation of removal. Because he presents claims pertaining only to withholding, and cancellation, of removal, he has abandoned any challenge to the BIA’s determination that he was not eligible for protection under the CAT. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s decision, to the extent it influenced the BIA), questions of law are reviewed de novo; factual findings, for substantial evidence, Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2012); and denial of the motion to remand, for abuse of discretion, Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 365 (5th Cir. 2014). To be eligible for withholding of removal, an applicant “must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution upon return”. Munoz- Granados, 958 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004)). A clear probability of persecution “means that it is more likely than not that the applicant’s life or freedom would be threatened by persecution on account of either his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”. Roy, 389 F.3d at 138 (emphasis added). Although Espinoza asserts he was threatened by members of his wife’s family based on his membership in the Espinoza- Villasenor family, his testimony reflects that he was threatened because his wife’s family did not approve of his relationship with his wife (who died after his illegal entry in the United States). In fact, he acknowledged that his wife’s family’s issue with him had nothing to do with his family; it was related to the age difference between him and his wife and because he left her. Moreover, he testified that he was the only one in his family who had been threatened by his wife’s family. “Persecution motivated by a personal vendetta or desire for revenge is not persecution ‘on account of’ a protected ground.” Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals