Ignacio Garcia Junco v. William Barr, U. S. Atty G ( 2020 )

Case: 19-60473 Document: 00515587354 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/02/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 2, 2020
No. 19-60473 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Ignacio Ernesto Garcia Junco,
Petitioner,
versus
William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A215 734 153
Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ignacio Ernesto Garcia Junco, a native and citizen of Cuba, seeks
review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his
appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60473 Document: 00515587354 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/02/2020
No. 19-60473
Torture (CAT). Garcia Junco argues that the BIA committed legal error by
failing to consider the substantial evidence of his past persecution and well-
founded fear of future persecution based upon his political opinion, namely
his refusal to associate with and endorse the Cuban government.
We review the final decision of the BIA and also consider the IJ’s
decision where it influenced the determination of the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales,
493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). We review the factual findings of the BIA
and IJ for substantial evidence, while legal questions are reviewed de novo. Id.
at 594. The BIA’s factual findings are conclusive under the substantial
evidence standard unless the record compels a contrary finding. See Sharma
v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013).
Asylum may be granted to a noncitizen “who is unable or unwilling to
return to his home country ‘because of persecution or a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion.’” Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d
339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481
(1992)). The burden is on the applicant to present “specific, detailed facts”
to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.
Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012).
Garcia Junco has not established that the findings of the BIA, which
presumed him credible despite the IJ’s discrediting of him, that he failed to
establish past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution
based upon his political opinion were not supported by substantial evidence,
see Zhu, 493 F.3d at 593, or that the evidence compels the conclusion that he
suffered past persecution or that his fear of future persecution is objectively
reasonable, see Sharma, 729 F.3d at 411; Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518;
Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). By his own admission,
Garcia Junco is not in a political organization. Furthermore, substantial
2
Case: 19-60473 Document: 00515587354 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/02/2020
No. 19-60473
evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Garcia Junco did not have a
well-founded fear of future persecution. See Zhu, 493 F.3d at 593. Garcia
Junco testified that he worked, owned a company, and traveled outside of
Cuba in the ten-year period between his refusal to volunteer for the military
and his subsequent interactions with the police. Because Garcia Junco did
not establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily has not established
eligibility for withholding of removal. See Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590,
595 (5th Cir. 2006).
To the extent Garcia Junco is challenging the denial of CAT
protection, he has abandoned that claim by failing to adequately brief it. See
Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam).
The petition for review is DENIED.
3