Case: 16-60772 Document: 00514288720 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 16-60772 December 29, 2017 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ROMAN MATEO-ZEFERINO, also known as Roman Zeferino-Mateo, Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A087 896 903 Before JONES, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Roman Mateo-Zeferino, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He contends the BIA erred in ruling he was ineligible for relief. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: 16-60772 Document: 00514288720 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2017 No. 16-60772 In 2009, Mateo received a notice to appear, stating he was subject to removal, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), after being arrested in New Orleans. In 2011, he filed his initial application for withholding of removal, contending he feared persecution in Mexico. He asserts members of another family have been persecuting his family in retribution for murders in 1999 of members of that other family. Mateo was convicted of those murders, but the conviction was vacated on appeal. His application for withholding of removal was denied, along with two subsequent requests for relief after successful motions to reopen. A determination an alien is not eligible for relief is reviewed for substantial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Although this court generally reviews only the BIA’s decision, because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s conclusions concerning Mateo’s eligibility for relief, both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions are reviewable. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Under the substantial evidence standard, “this court may not reverse the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels it.” Id. at 536– 37. Mateo must demonstrate the evidence is “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it”. Id. at 537. Mateo maintains he was persecuted due to, and had a well-founded fear of persecution on account of, his membership in a particular social group, his family. He is eligible for withholding of removal if he meets his burden to show his “life or freedom would be threatened . . . because of [his] . . . membership in a particular social group”. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b). The evidence does not compel a finding he was persecuted, or likely would be persecuted, due to his membership in a particular social group. Wang, 569 F.3d at 537. Even if his family had the required social visibility and particularity to be ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals