Case: 22-60272 Document: 00516653328 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-60272 FILED Summary Calendar February 23, 2023 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Francisco Noe Nolasco, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. ______________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A206 259 053 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Francisco Noe Nolasco, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing in part and remanding in part his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). See Holguin-Mendoza v. _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-60272 Document: 00516653328 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2023 No. 22-60272 Lynch, 835 F.3d 508, 509 (5th Cir. 2018). Because the BIA’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard, it may not be disturbed unless the evidence “compels” a contrary conclusion. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). This standard has not been met. Because Nolasco points to neither evidence nor authority showing that his proposed particular social groups were distinct and particular, he fails to show that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the issue whether he was eligible for asylum and withholding. See Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 402 (5th Cir. 2021); Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 229 (5th Cir. 2019); Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344; Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 806 (5th Cir. 2002). We need not consider his remaining arguments concerning these forms of relief. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). Similarly, his challenge to the denial of CAT relief fails because he cites nothing compelling a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the issue whether he more likely than not will be tortured with government acquiescence if repatriated. See Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017); Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. The petition for review is DENIED. 2 22-60272 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ca5 5th Cir. Nolasco v. Garland 27 February 2023 Immigration Unpublished 311c4446be4be4775ee8979e4287c3ef5a3d38fa
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals