Case: 19-60369 Document: 00515667041 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 9, 2020 No. 19-60369 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Miguel Angel Gaitan-Burgos, Petitioner, versus William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A215 892 942 Before Jones, Barksdale, and Stewart, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Miguel Angel Gaitan-Burgos, a native and citizen of Nicaragua and proceeding pro se, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-60369 Document: 00515667041 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2020 No. 19-60369 (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). His claims fail. We review the BIA’s final decision, but only review the IJ’s ruling insofar as it affected the BIA’s decision. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). The BIA’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; its findings of fact, under the “substantial evidence standard”. Orellana- Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). Under this standard, we affirm unless the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable finder of fact could conclude against it. Id. at 518. As an initial matter, Gaitan asserts the BIA should have remanded his case to the IJ to explain why his case proceeded without the introduction of his credible-fear interview report; he claims that, without this report, he did not receive a full and fair hearing because all available evidence was not examined. Because Gaitan did not raise this issue before the BIA, he has failed to exhaust it; and we, therefore, lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Vazquez v. Sessions, 885 F.3d 862, 868 (5th Cir. 2018); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004). Gaitan also asserts the BIA erred by applying a higher standard to his claims than this court requires, maintaining: the BIA failed to consider that persecution may take forms other than physical harm; and the cumulative effect of multiple threats or attacks may form the basis of a claim of persecution. Gaitan makes valid legal claims about what constitutes persecution as a basis for asylum; but, he did not allege any non-physical form of persecution, and, as discussed infra, the cumulative effect of the incidents alleged by Gaitan does not constitute the required persecution. For past persecution, Gaitan’s asylum claim bases the requisite persecution on two incidents. The first was in 2012, when: a leader of the ruling Sandinista party appeared at his home; the leader threatened him and 2 Case: 19-60369 Document: 00515667041 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/09/2020 No. 19-60369 his family with death; and a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals