Camejo Gonzalez v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 20-60250 Document: 00516057260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 15, 2021
No. 20-60250 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Yaciel Yulian Camejo Gonzalez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A203 496 530
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Yaciel Yulian Camejo Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Cuba, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60250 Document: 00516057260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2021
No. 20-60250
challenges the determination that he was competent to proceed in
immigration proceedings. Because he does not challenge the determination
that his underlying asylum claim lacked merit or that he was not entitled to
protection under the CAT, he has abandoned review of these claims. See
Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008).
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).
Aliens in removal proceedings are presumed to be competent to
participate in those proceedings. Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I & N Dec. 474, 477
(BIA 2011). However, if an issue implicating mental competency arises, the
immigration judge must determine whether the alien is competent to
proceed. Id. at 479. To determine whether an alien is competent to
participate in immigration proceedings, an immigration judge considers
“whether he or she has a rational and factual understanding of the nature and
object of the proceedings, can consult with the attorney or representative if
there is one, and has a reasonable opportunity to examine and present
evidence and cross-examine witnesses.” Id.Despite Camejo Gonzalez’s assertions to the contrary, the
immigration judge properly inquired into his level of competency. When he
stated that he was “going a little bit nuts,” the immigration judge
immediately asked what he meant by that statement and inquired into his
mental state by asking whether he was taking any medication to treat a mental
illness, whether he understood the nature and purpose of the hearing, and
whether he understood who the immigration judge was. While Camejo
Gonzalez claims that this inquiry was inadequate, the approach to assess
2
Case: 20-60250 Document: 00516057260 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/15/2021
No. 20-60250
competency is made on a case by case basis and these questions were
sufficient to establish that he understood the nature and object of the
proceedings. See id. at 479-80. Because Camejo Gonzalez presented his
asylum claim in a cogent manner, was able to answer questions, and indicated
that he understood what was happening and the role of the court, substantial
evidence supports the determination that he had “a rational and factual
understanding of the nature and object of the proceedings.” See id. at 479.
Accordingly, the BIA did not err in affirming the finding that he was
competent to proceed.
Based upon the foregoing, the petition for review is DENIED.
3