Ramos Marquez v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60241 Document: 00516655714 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60241
FILED
February 24, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Henry Pablo Ramos Marquez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A205 288 680
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Henry Pablo Ramos Marquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing
his appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application
for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT).
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60241 Document: 00516655714 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2023
No. 22-60241
In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s, to the extent, as in this
instance, it influenced the BIA), legal conclusions are reviewed de novo;
factual findings, for substantial evidence. E.g., Orellana-Monson v. Holder,
685 F.3d 511, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under the substantial-evidence
standard, petitioner must demonstrate “the evidence is so compelling that
no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion”. Chen v.
Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
To qualify for withholding of removal, “applicant must demonstrate
a clear probability of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”. Id. at 1138(citation omitted). Because Marquez does not challenge the BIA’s ruling
that he failed to make this showing, he abandons this claim. E.g., Soadjede v.
Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (noting issues not briefed are
abandoned). And, because Marquez fails to show error in the BIA’s ruling
that he had not made the persecution showing, we need not consider his
nexus assertion. E.g., INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a
general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues
the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
Finally, he fails to show evidence compels a ruling contrary to that of
the BIA on whether he showed he more likely than not would be tortured
with governmental acquiescence if repatriated; therefore, he shows no error
in the denial of his CAT claim. E.g., Tabora Gutierrez v. Garland, 12 F.4th
496, 502 (5th Cir. 2021) (explaining applicant must show “it is more likely
than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of
removal” (citation omitted)).
DENIED.
2