Case: 19-60644 Document: 00515976541 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 12, 2021 No. 19-60644 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Thushanthan Thangavelrajah, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A215 766 011 Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Thushanthan Thangavelrajah, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-60644 Document: 00515976541 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2021 No. 19-60644 Torture (CAT). He argues that he is eligible for asylum because he demonstrated a pattern or practice of discrimination; that the BIA failed to address his arguments that he was subjected to persecution based on his ethnicity or would be subjected to future persecution based on being a failed asylum seeker, and that he is entitled to protection under the CAT. Thangavelrajah does not substantively challenge the adverse credibility determination or the dismissal of his withholding of removal claim and, therefore, has abandoned review of these issues. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). Moreover, because he failed to exhaust his claim that the BIA engaged in impermissible fact-finding, we lack jurisdiction to address this argument. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant must prove that he is unwilling or unable to return to his home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). An applicant is not required to provide evidence that he would be singled out for persecution in his home country if he demonstrates that there is a practice or practice of persecution against an identifiable group on account of a protected ground and that he is a member of that group. Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 153, 160 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(iii)). The record does not compel the conclusion that Thangavelrajah is ethnically Tamil. Although he testified that he was persecuted because of his ethnicity, this claim is insufficient to establish his Tamil ethnicity because his 2 Case: …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals