Case: 18-60770 Document: 00515597872 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 12, 2020 No. 18-60770 Lyle W. Cayce consolidated with Clerk No. 19-60395 Summary Calendar Pappy Katembo Katembo, Petitioner, versus William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A212 978 911 Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Pappy Katembo, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), petitions this court for review of the denial of his application * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-60770 Document: 00515597872 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2020 No. 18-60770 c/w No. 19-60395 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He argues (1) the immigration judge (IJ) erred in holding he did not show that he suffered persecution on account of his actual or imputed political opinion; (2) the IJ and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) erred in failing to analyze whether he was persecuted on account of his membership in a particular social group, people who worked for National Independent Electoral Commission (CENI) during the 2011 election cycle; (3) the IJ applied the wrong legal standard and mischaracterized evidence when considering whether the government was unwilling or unable to control the persons who persecuted him; and (4) the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. We must deny the petition, for the following reasons. First, regardless of whether or not Katembo could show that the harm he suffered rose to the level of persecution, see Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 816 (5th Cir. 2017), he has not shown that the evidence compels the finding that he suffered persecution on account of his actual or imputed political opinion. See Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 227-28 (5th Cir. 2019). Katembo testified that he thought the perpetrators who attacked him were working for a politician who lost the election, but the IJ found (and the BIA agreed) that he did not adequately show that the threats and attacks he suffered were related or that the perpetrators were motivated by his actual or imputed political beliefs. See Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 412-13 (5th Cir. 2013). Rather, the IJ found Katembo was targeted because of his occupation as an election worker. Next, although Katembo testified at his hearing that he was targeted because of his work with CENI, the IJ determined based on his asylum application that he was seeking relief because of his political opinion. The BIA ruled that Katembo attempted to articulate a particular social group for the first time on appeal. Because Katembo did not expressly seek relief based on his membership in a particular social group before the IJ, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals