Perez-Gomez v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 20-60370 Document: 00515996947 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-60370 August 26, 2021
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Julio Perez-Gomez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 565 856
Before Barksdale, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Julio Perez-Gomez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denying his applications
for: asylum; withholding of removal; and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT).
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60370 Document: 00515996947 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2021
No. 20-60370
In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s, to the extent it
influenced the BIA), questions of law are reviewed de novo; factual findings,
for substantial evidence. E.g., Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–
18 (5th Cir. 2012).
The IJ denied Perez’ applications for asylum and withholding of
removal, finding he had neither alleged the Guatemalan government had
persecuted him nor demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution based
on that government’s unwillingness or inability to control the gangs that
Perez claimed to fear. See Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109, 113 (5th
Cir. 2006) (explaining that, for asylum, applicant must demonstrate
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution “by the government or
forces that a government is unable or unwilling to control” (citing 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132,
138 (5th Cir. 2004) (explaining withholding of removal is a higher standard
than asylum, requiring applicant to demonstrate a clear probability of
persecution). The IJ also denied Perez relief under the CAT, finding he had
not demonstrated it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by, or
with the acquiescence of, the Guatemalan government. See, e.g., Chen v.
Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1139 (5th Cir. 2006).
The BIA adopted the order of the Immigration Judge (IJ). Perez
contends, inter alia: the BIA erred by upholding the IJ’s findings. He did
not, however, dispute these findings before the BIA. Perez made no mention
of the Guatemalan government’s ability or willingness to control the cited
gangs or the government’s participation or acquiescence to any torture he
may endure if returned to Guatemala. Because he failed to exhaust these
claims before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to review them. See, e.g., Roy, 389
F.3d at 137.
2
Case: 20-60370 Document: 00515996947 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/26/2021
No. 20-60370
These unreviewable findings are fatal to Perez’ claims for relief.
Accordingly, we need not address his remaining contentions.
DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3