Zapata Almanza v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 20-60381 Document: 00516387394 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 8, 2022
No. 20-60381 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Arturo Zapata Almanza, also known as Arturo Almanza
Zapata,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A205 909 153
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Arturo Zapata Almanza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions us
for review of a decision of the BIA. He asserts that his claims for asylum,
withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture,
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60381 Document: 00516387394 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2022
No. 20-60381
and cancellation of removal were incorrectly denied. We lack jurisdiction to
review factual findings underlying discretionary decisions such as denial of
cancellation of removal. Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614 (2022). We review
other factual findings of the Board of Immigration Appeals for substantial
evidence, and review all questions of law de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft,
263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). Under the substantial evidence standard,
reversal is improper unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.
Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996)
We are not compelled to find that Almanza has proven the elements
of a future persecution asylum claim. He first argues that there are dangerous
conditions in Mexico, but widespread violence is not persecution. Eduard v.
Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 190 (5th Cir. 2004). Additionally, the record does not
show that the two social groups proposed by Almanza are distinct enough to
be cognizable. Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 239, 244 (BIA 2014).
As Almanza cannot prove an asylum claim, his withholding claim
necessarily fails. Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2020).
We are not compelled to find that Almanza has proven that he will,
more likely than not, be tortured with the involvement or acquiescence of the
Mexican government. Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885, 892 (5th Cir. 2014).
Finally, Almanza raises no claims of legal error in the BIA’s
determination that his two young, U.S. citizen children would not suffer
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, a necessary predicate for
cancellation of removal. Because our jurisdiction to review denials of
discretionary relief is limited to questions of law, we cannot entertain
Almanza’s attack on the BIA’s factual findings about hardship. Patel, 142 S.
Ct. at 1627. Further analysis of the cancellation elements is unnecessary
because the claim is fatally flawed. INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26
(1976).
2
Case: 20-60381 Document: 00516387394 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/08/2022
No. 20-60381
DENIED.
3