Nolasco v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60272 Document: 00516653328 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60272 FILED
Summary Calendar February 23, 2023
____________
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Francisco Noe Nolasco,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A206 259 053
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Francisco Noe Nolasco, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions
this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing in part and remanding in part his appeal from an order of an
Immigration Judge denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). See Holguin-Mendoza v.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60272 Document: 00516653328 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2023
No. 22-60272
Lynch, 835 F.3d 508, 509 (5th Cir. 2018). Because the BIA’s denial of asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief is reviewed under the substantial
evidence standard, it may not be disturbed unless the evidence “compels” a
contrary conclusion. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Chen v. Gonzales, 470
F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
This standard has not been met. Because Nolasco points to neither
evidence nor authority showing that his proposed particular social groups
were distinct and particular, he fails to show that the evidence compels a
conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the issue whether he was eligible
for asylum and withholding. See Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 402 (5th Cir.
2021); Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 229 (5th Cir. 2019); Zhang, 432
F.3d at 344; Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 806 (5th Cir. 2002). We need not
consider his remaining arguments concerning these forms of relief. See INS
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). Similarly, his challenge to the denial
of CAT relief fails because he cites nothing compelling a conclusion contrary
to that of the BIA on the issue whether he more likely than not will be tortured
with government acquiescence if repatriated. See Morales v. Sessions, 860
F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017); Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. The petition for review
is DENIED.
2