Case: 16-60689 Document: 00514421691 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 16-60689 April 9, 2018 c/w No. 17-60363 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk IMELDA MARISCAL-ROMO; JESUS ARTURO JIMENEZ-MANJARREZ, Petitioners v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A205 831 093 BIA No. A205 667 680 Before BARKSDALE, OWEN, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In these consolidated cases, married couple Imelda Mariscal-Romo and Jesus Arturo Jimenez-Manjarrez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of: the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of their appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: 16-60689 Document: 00514421691 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2018 No. 16-60689 c/w No. 17-60363 (CAT); and the BIA’s denial of their motion to reopen the proceedings pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). In their applications for asylum and withholding of removal, Mariscal and Jimenez claimed they suffered past persecution and had a well-founded fear of persecution due to their membership in the Mariscal family. In that regard, they sought relief based on their fear of being persecuted and tortured in their home country of Mexico. Before the IJ, Mariscal testified that she and her family fled Mexico in 2012, after unknown assailants kidnapped and murdered her brother, assaulted her mother, and made threatening telephone calls to her family. She also testified that her father, grandfather, and uncle were murdered by a rival family more than two decades earlier. The BIA dismissed Mariscal and Jimenez’ appeal from an adverse IJ decision, ruling, inter alia: they did not establish, for their asylum and withholding-of-removal claims, a well-founded fear of persecution because of their “membership in a particular social group”, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); and, for their CAT claims, that the Mexican government was complicit in their torture, Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 351 (5th Cir. 2006). Mariscal and Jimenez assert, inter alia: the BIA improperly focused on a single incident—Mariscal’s brother’s murder—instead of viewing all of the events supporting their claims; and the record evidence compelled a finding that Mexican authorities deliberately failed to protect their family. “When considering a petition for review, this court has the authority to review only the BIA’s decision, not the IJ’s . . ., unless the IJ’s . . . has some impact on the BIA’s . . . .” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Factual findings are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard; legal questions, de novo, giving deference to the BIA’s interpretation of any 2 Case: 16-60689 Document: 00514421691 Page: 3 Date ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals