Case: 20-60726 Document: 00515993088 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 20-60726 August 24, 2021 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Javier Antonio Ramirez, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A209 432 480 Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Javier Antonio Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-60726 Document: 00515993088 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2021 No. 20-60726 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). His claims stem from several incidents involving gang members. This court reviews only the BIA’s decision, “unless the IJ’s decision has some impact on” that decision. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Factual findings are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard, and legal questions are reviewed de novo, with deference accorded to the BIA’s reasonable interpretations of immigration statutes. Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 584 (5th Cir. 2011). There is no merit to Ramirez’s contention that the IJ and the BIA erred in determining that his articulated particular social group (PSG), “Salvadoran men who fear violence and delinquency in their home country,” was not cognizable. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 521-22 (5th Cir. 2012). Because Ramirez articulated a precise, though unsuccessful PSG, the IJ was not obligated to seek clarification to ensure full development of the record. See Cantarero Lagos v. Barr, 924 F.3d 145, 151-52 (5th Cir. 2019). To the extent that Ramirez argues that the BIA erred by failing to seek clarification of his PSG, this issue is unexhausted. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 320-21 (5th Cir. 2009). And, in any event, the BIA does not err by failing to consider a PSG that was not presented to the IJ. See Cantarero- Lagos, 924 F.3d at 151-53. Given his failure to establish his membership in a cognizable PSG, which was the only protected ground he asserted in his asylum application, Ramirez cannot make a showing of nexus to a protected ground, and therefore his assertions of error as to the nexus requirement are unavailing. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 522. His asylum claim therefore fails, and the failure of his asylum claim is also dispositive of his claim for withholding of removal. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 522; Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzalez, 447 F.3d 343, 349-50 (5th Cir. 2006). In view of the foregoing, 2 Case: 20-60726 Document: 00515993088 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/24/2021 No. 20-60726 he has not shown error in the BIA’s determination …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals